The OFFICIAL Unofficial Achewood Message Board
Trivial Pursuits => History => Topic started by: jough on November 03, 2004, 07:07:06 am
-
Four more years.
Sigh.
Four more long, painful, economically spiraling downward years.
FUCK YOU, OHIO
-
.....Slink, Andalucia.....do you guys have couches?
-
.....Slink, Andalucia.....do you guys have couches?
Sure, but you do know Blair is gonna be sat in his fuck*ng pocket for another four years right?
I think my mantra for the day is: fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck.
How!?
Ugh.
-
I'm thinking maybe I should relax and look forward to World War Three. After all, I'm still looking for work, and maybe I could get a good job in a bomb factory.
-
Yes, Bozack, come to the magical kingdom under the sea that is Canada. Because your country is apparently unfit to pick its own leaders. Wow.
What did you guys do last night? Some friends and I baked cookies and drank timely beer (http://www.unibroue.com/products/fin.cfm) and watched the results come in on CBC (which always gave Kerry hilarious leads) and some Vermont station. I woke up this morning from a bad dream with a headache, rolled out of bed and went to cnn.com. Not that I'm surprised, but it's still pretty goddamn depressing.
-
Well, at least we'll get to drag out the presidency in the courts for the next two months!
There's always that!
-
Look, at this point I'm just grateful for the recount. Where there's yelling, there's hope.
Anyway, my reaction to this reminds me surprisingly of my reaction to 9/11: shocked? Yes. Terrified? Yes. Filled with a creeping, hideous realization that this may not actually affect my life all that much, if I take the right precautions? Yes.
Time to start looking at graduate schools in which I can hide once I finish undergraduate. I don't think I want to contemplate entering the private sector during a Bush administration.
-
Hey y'all - no I'm not dead, just lurking heavily.
Up half the night with our new not-quite-housebroken kitty and cnn.com for nothing. Today, the SO and I will begin the hunt for grad schools in countries that have a slightly less asinine electorate.
And now I have to teach crazy-ass 8th graders while I'm exhausted and cranky. Nobody'd better give me trouble, or they're in for SuperBitch2004.
-
Four more years.
Sigh.
Four more long, painful, economically spiraling downward years.
FUCK YOU, OHIO
Here's my worry. For the last 4 years we've had Acting President Bush (since he was appointed not elected). Now do these years count towards his term limit or can this fuckwad run again in '08?
And what is up with dumb-ass religious motherfuckers? Bush was the least xtian candidate by far but he swept the Bible Belt. He opposes every major tenet of the faith but those morons voted for him just because he's republican, I guess.
-
And what is up with dumb-ass religious motherfuckers? Bush was the least xtian candidate by far but he swept the Bible Belt. He opposes every major tenet of the faith but those morons voted for him just because he's republican, I guess.
I don't have back-up on this, but I've been told that in exit polling, the #1 cited issue for Republican voters was... gay marriage.
Who cares about any kind of sound fiscal or foreign policy? Gotta keep the fuckin' fags from getting hitched!
Ye gods, I'm stuck in this country with millions of fuck*ng idiots.
-
Four more years.
Sigh.
Four more long, painful, economically spiraling downward years.
FUCK YOU, OHIO
I'll thank you for not wishing to fuck the entire state of Ohio. Some of us voted for regime change and thus should not be subject to such broad strokes of the fuck*ng Brush.
How about we fuck the 150,000 or so people who couldn't be motivated to tear themselves away from The Tony Danza Show long enough to cast a ballot for Kerry?
-
And what is up with dumb-ass religious motherfuckers? Bush was the least xtian candidate by far but he swept the Bible Belt. He opposes every major tenet of the faith but those morons voted for him just because he's republican, I guess.
I don't have back-up on this, but I've been told that in exit polling, the #1 cited issue for Republican voters was... gay marriage.
This pisses me off so much. What about other religious issues? Like food/clothing for the poor? Bearing false witness? Killing? Those are all huge strikes against Bush from a religious standpoint.
Not to mention the fact that only part of the Bible that says not to be gay doesn't apply to Christians. It's one of the Old Testament which was effectively voided by Jesus. The whole covenant being fulfilled thing. It's the same reason Christians don't have to keep kosher.
I bet at least half of these stupid motherfuckers are still against interracial marriage too.
-
In reply to your post V, yea, I feel pretty much the same.
I am shocked and appalled and depressed by the news, but it won't affect my life at all, really. The thing is, what I am depressed and appalled about is the lack of rights that people are going to have, and the continuing deaths of thousands upon thousands of innocents.
I am just spending the day listening to eMotive.
Sing along now 'Let's start a war (we could use the money)'...
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuugh.
-
Update: Not gay marriage specifically, but "moral values," which translates as "abortion and gay marriage." Go here (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html) and scroll down to "Most Important Issue." Moral Values is the top choice; those who cited it went 79% for Bush.
-
Rest of the world,
We're sorry.
- 49% of America, 48% of Ohio.
-
Rest of the world,
We're sorry.
- 49% of America, 48% of Ohio.
Here, here. Specifically to all you folks on this board who are not citizens of this often backward-ass country, I am sorry for our easily-misled electorate.
-
I'm a registered Republican (you'd be stupid not to be in totally Republican controlled SE PA) and believe in a number of traditional Republican values, but sheesh, Bush is NOT a Republican by most accounts.
I am, however, looking forward to voting for John McCain in 2008. There's a man who is worthy of the office.
Of course, I expect all of your votes in 2012, when I am constitutionally able to take the office of the president.
-
I'll let someone else speak for me, in this case The Left Coaster (http://www.theleftcoaster.com/):
Last night, I got about 4 hours of sleep as I simultaneously went through the anger, denial, bargaining, and acceptance stages of grief. Since John Kerry is conceding, however, it's time to turn the page. Those of us who sought to take back our country in two short years were rudely awakened with the realization that it will take a generation instead.
-
I am, however, looking forward to voting for John McCain in 2008. There's a man who is worthy of the office.
I'm looking forward to that amendment going through that allows Arnold to run. A race between him and Hillary ought to be exciting.
-
What did you guys do last night?
Stared at my hands, sobbing silently, rocking back and forth. But wait--that's every night for me. I think last night I actually sobbed out loud.
-
What did you guys do last night?
Mostly consoled my wife on the phone, and then tossed and turned for awhile. Then I got out of bed, took a couple of sleeping pills, and read some James Ellroy until I finally fell asleep.
-
Not to mention the fact that only part of the Bible that says not to be gay doesn't apply to Christians. It's one of the Old Testament which was effectively voided by Jesus. The whole covenant being fulfilled thing. It's the same reason Christians don't have to keep kosher.
I bet at least half of these stupid motherfuckers are still against interracial marriage too.
You know, that's not exactly true. First of all, not all Christians "reject" the Old Testament. I know that Jehovah's Witnesses do, which is (partially, at least) why they don't observe the Sabbath. And it's not like Jesus said: "OK, guys, I'm here, now let's chuck out that thick book, and I'll replace it with a much shorter one." When Jesus quoted from scripture in the New Testament, he certianly wasn't quoting Paul and Peter, he was quoting the Old Testament. I think the Law of Moses is what specifically was fulfilled. All that stuff about not eating pigs and bats. So why do Christians still place heavy emphasis on the Ten Commandments? Well, because Jesus did. He said that not only shouldn't you commit adultery, you shouldn't lust after a woman in your heart. Not only shouldn't you murder, but that it's also just as sinful to be angry. Paul talks about the Law being fulfillied in Galatians, basically saying that the Law was a teacher to prepare for Christ, and so now that Christ has come, it isn't needed anymore. But many of the principles taught in the OT still apply, because they were principles given by God. Why would God incarnate reject them?
Specifically about homosexuality:
1 Cor. 6:9
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
Is that clear enough? I believe that "effeminate" refers to boys who have relationships with men, and "abusers of themselves with mankind" are male homosexuals in general. I could be wrong about the effeminate, but I think abusers of themselves with mankind is pretty clear.
The kicker is--fornicators. Most Americans fornicate. Paul puts it on the same level of sinfulness as homosexuality. But most people don't accept this.
It also helps to explain why Justice Scalia, dissenting from the Lawrence v Texas opinion, ranted about the slippery slope leading to the acceptance/legalization of beastiality, incest, blah blah, and, get this, fornication and masturbation! Now there's someone who takes his NT seriously. It's rare that fornication is seen as a sin at all these days, let alone one on par with homosexuality.
OK, the reason why I posted this is not because I hold these views. I don't care whether someone is Christian or not. I just think it's important to take the Bible for what it is. I also realize that many will disagree with the interpretation I just posted, but I feel that mine is at least plausible. My point is that you can't say to people who think that homosexualty is sinful "Well, you just don't get Christianity." It's in there. Every Christian chooses what they want and don't want to take out of the Bible. Even so-called fundamentalist Christians. It's just another interpretation.
-
What did you guys do last night?
The girlfriend and I went over to her friend's place to watch the results. I got everybody pumped up over horrible, horrible false exit poll results, and the mood just deteriorated over the course of the evening until I decided at about 11:00 that it was time to go to bed.
On the bright side, we did manage to avoid electing some of the worst of the religious conservatives we could have in Kansas, and I can now buy Liquor on Sundays in my home town.
I think I'm still in a state of shock over Bush winning so convincingly. This is my first election ever supporting one of the Big Two candidates (reluctant as that support was), but I really thought that Kerry was going to take it.
I'm still pissed about the low turnout among 18-24 year olds. I heard 10% on the radio this morning, and that is just appalling. I suppose that was to be expected historically, but I really thought that people were fired up about this.
Ugh. I'm disgusted with the electorate, and I think it would be in my best interests to stop paying attention to the news for a few months. I doubt I'll be able to do it, though.
-
Interpretation of the bible.
My question is always, what does gay marriage have to do with other people? How does it affect anyone other than the two people getting married?
-
Interpretation of the bible.
My question is always, what does gay marriage have to do with other people? How does it affect anyone other than the two people getting married?
And that is a wonderful question to ask, especially in this secular nation. One answer I hear often here in Utah is that same-sex parents are ill-equipped to raise children. I don't buy it, but it is an attempt to avoid an answer like "well, the bible says so, fag."
-
More young people were registering to vote, but republicans were using legal pressure to make sure that they couldn't vote once they got to the polls.
Also, there was some new legislation last year making it harder for college students to get absentee ballots from their home states.
Bear in mind that young people tend to vote on the left.
-
Interpretation of the bible.
My question is always, what does gay marriage have to do with other people? How does it affect anyone other than the two people getting married?
And that is a wonderful question to ask, especially in this secular nation. One answer I hear often here in Utah is that same-sex parents are ill-equipped to raise children. I don't buy it, but it is an attempt to avoid an answer like "well, the bible says so, fag."
I think there are many people in this country who are just astonished that anyone who isn't a Christian would expect to have any rights at all. It seems as though many people think Christianity is the default official belief system for this country. Why should I care what someone else's God thinks about what I am doing in my own home? What difference does that make?
-
The kicker is--fornicators. Most Americans fornicate. Paul puts it on the same level of sinfulness as homosexuality. But most people don't accept this.
This is very true. Also true that Jesus puts lust on par with adultery. Many Christians are willing to turn a blind eye to philandering evangelists, womanizing politicians (and humiliatingly so) like Ahnold, and, perhaps most notably, the heavy use of prostitutes (even underage and trafficked ones) by our troops in foreign ports. Boys will be boys, eh? But boys doing boys, those are the real sinners.
One of the things that Jesus talked most about is money. Its stewardship is a moral issue. You could argue that he, as well as God in the OT, were biased towards the "orphan, the widow, and the alien" (the poor and disenfranchised), yet this administration is far, far from that.
-
I went to the Feminist Majority (feminist.org) to watch the results. At the time it seemed like all good news. Slate bucking the agreement and releasing exit polls as they came in and all the battleground states except Nevada were showing Kerry. Plus a Bush pollster (I forget his name) told alternet that Kerry would take it. I bailed to go home and watch the live Daily Show but my SO didn't come home until 3am and said it wasn't looking good any more.
I'd never seen the "effeminate" thing but I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm giong to chalk that particular diction up to translations of translations. And the way I learned it was that Christians are not bound by the covenants that God made with Noah, or Abraham, or Moses. Instead, each time we partake of communion, we are binding ourselves to what Jesus taught. And while Jesus did make it a point to reiterate the Ten Commandments (and the "golden rule") h(H)e never once mentioned homosexuality. Although a deciple did which is where I'm guessing the Corinthians quote came from.
I also have a hard time taking a person seriously when they reffer to the judeo-christian deity as "Him." 2/3 of that entity is gender neutral. Therefore unless specifically talking about Jesus the correct term is It.
And I'm engaged. I don't want a bunch of gay people making a law that says I can't marry my SO because they don't like it. Therefore I will not attempt to treat homosexuals in the same way. I will treat them and their relationships as I would like them to treat me and mine.
But anyway. I still think that food, clothes, jobs, and health insurance for the poor is a larger moral issue than butt sex so Kerry was the the Christian choice. Not to mention the not invading other countries and killing people for no reason thing.
-
One of the things that Jesus talked most about is money. Its stewardship is a moral issue. You could argue that he, as well as God in the OT, were biased towards the "orphan, the widow, and the alien" (the poor and disenfranchised), yet this administration is far, far from that.
Exactly. When an alien resides with you in your land, you shall not oppress the alien. The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt:
In other words, respect other's beliefs and practices even if you don't agree with them! That doesn't mean that preaching or converting is wrong, just that one shouldn't blatantly try to block others from practicing their beliefs in the mean-time.
-
I've probably posted this before, but just in case: very good post on the Biblical origins of "gays/shrimp are an abomination," and their overturning, here (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2004/07/the_abominable_.html).
-
Seperation of church and state?
Also, I refuse to pay any attention to anything in the bible, not just because I'm an atheist, but any bible is a translation. The various translations around show that you can pick various nuances in the interpretation. It is wholly unwise to base these decisions on it.
-
I'd never seen the "effeminate" thing but I'm not sure how I feel about it. I'm giong to chalk that particular diction up to translations of translations. And the way I learned it was that Christians are not bound by the covenants that God made with Noah, or Abraham, or Moses. Instead, each time we partake of communion, we are binding ourselves to what Jesus taught. And while Jesus did make it a point to reiterate the Ten Commandments (and the "golden rule") h(H)e never once mentioned homosexuality. Although a deciple did which is where I'm guessing the Corinthians quote came from.
I also have a hard time taking a person seriously when they reffer to the judeo-christian deity as "Him." 2/3 of that entity is gender neutral. Therefore unless specifically talking about Jesus the correct term is It.
And I'm engaged. I don't want a bunch of gay people making a law that says I can't marry my SO because they don't like it. Therefore I will not attempt to treat homosexuals in the same way. I will treat them and their relationships as I would like them to treat me and mine.
But anyway. I still think that food, clothes, jobs, and health insurance for the poor is a larger moral issue than butt sex so Kerry was the the Christian choice. Not to mention the not invading other countries and killing people for no reason thing.
Corinthians is attributed to Paul. And listen, I'm not making any theistic claims. We could nitpick about all sorts of things. The whole Bible is a bit wacky. I don't think that it was until the 18th or 19th century when philologists really started to take a look at the Bible. A lot of it didn't seem to fit. So when I referred to God as a male, I only did it because the majority of Christians do so, even many who probably don't believe that God has a sex. Who cares whether I got the pronoun right. I take you seriously even though you produced this sentence: "I also have a hard time taking a person seriously when they...." You made a mistake that is so common today many people don't really consider it a mistake. I make it all the time. My main point was to say that the condemnation of homosexuality is right there in the NT. It's not in red text, but it's there. I don't endorse the condemnation, but it's not like people who do are simply misreading the Bible.
And Christians aren't bound to the Law of Moses, but it's not like the entire OT is about the Law of Moses. And you can't argue that just because Jesus didn't mention homosexuality must mean he approves of it. You can doubt whether Paul authored Corinthians, but you could just as easily doubt whether Jesus actually spoke the words attributed to him in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Who is to say whether poverty, war, or sexual immorality is the bigger moral issue? What is morality anyway? God really didn't seem to mind the wanton destruction of men, women, and children (not to mention the enslavment of young virgins) in the OT, in fact he explicitly commanded it. He has been picky about sexual morality. The relevant issue for us, I think, is whether banning gay marriage has a good enough secular purpose. I don't think it does. The whole Bible stuff was just to point out that Christians who oppose homosexuality aren't pulling it out of their asses. You choose, if you are a Christian, to ignore certain things in the Bible (and if you don't have a problem with homosexuality, it at least seems that you do). Everyone does. Some people don't have a problem with greed, which, obviously, was a huge problem to God. In my case, I choose to ignore much of the Bible, although I really enjoy studying it. Or you can just reject the Bible, and if you do, it would seem weird to use it to argue against Christians. Sure you can point out inconsistencies in their adherence to the faith, but the smarter thing would be to show why the Bible should be rejected as a whole.
A large portion of what I just wrote was pulled directly from my ass, so please correct me if you'd like.
-
Actually my main point with the It thing was that nobody gets it right. Because everybody picks a few nit-picky parts of a book that 40 guys wrote over several hundred years.
And you're right, there's absolutely no secular reason to ban gay marriage. And if we pick apart the bible then there's no religious legs to stand on either.
People in this country should be able to marry any consenting adult they choose. And do what they will with their bodies in the meantime. While burning flags and repealing the Patriot Act.
-
Stuff . . . The relevant issue for us, I think, is whether banning gay marriage has a good enough secular purpose. I don't think it does. . . More stuff.
I have no arguments with any of that stuff, and I'm down with you for this part of it, certainly. You are more of a bible scholar than I. I've never heard a particularly compelling argument for banning gay marriage. I don't suppose that there are too many folks who post here who would care to make one, I guess. It is nice that this board can host discussions that aren't so venomous as some of the others I have seen. I spent a little time on (God help me) the ESPN message boards yesterday - those are some downright tolerant people.
Oh look, a pool of sarcasm under my desk.
-
More young people were registering to vote, but republicans were using legal pressure to make sure that they couldn't vote once they got to the polls.
Also, there was some new legislation last year making it harder for college students to get absentee ballots from their home states.
Bear in mind that young people tend to vote on the left.
I'm a college student. I'm registered to vote in Southern California, but I go to school in Northern California. I had been told by the office of the chancellor of my university that I could vote here in the county superior courthouse in Oakland; when I got there, I was told that that information had been distributed incorrectly, and I wasn't allowed to vote.
So, er, yeah. Go America.
Oh, and I spent last night wondering what they're going to call the whiskey they name after me when I die in the civil war. Long live California secession!
-
Oh, and I spent last night wondering what they're going to call the whiskey they name after me when I die in the civil war. Long live California secession!
Wow, were you at the ESPN board yesterday too? Because there were some certifiable folks there who were just all bent out of shape because California has 55 electoral votes, and they thought the state should secede or be broken up into several smaller states.
-
Wow, were you at the ESPN board yesterday too? Because there were some certifiable folks there who were just all bent out of shape because California has 55 electoral votes, and they thought the state should secede or be broken up into several smaller states.
No, I thankfully avoided the ESPN messageboard the whole time. And the California secession thing was a joke; the idea (surprisingly) gets tossed around a bit, but I don't think anyone takes it seriously.
Besides which, were these people actually complaining that California has too much power? Californians have proporionately less voting power per person than residents of, say, Wyoming or Alabama, who get a stronger boost from their two senate-based electoral college votes.
-
Well, these were people whose sole argument for the Electoral College was that our forefathers did it that way. So I'd say they hadn't examined the subject too closely. Actually, one fellow said that the EC was good because it forced candidates to visit rural areas, and that way the rural voice was represented, instead of being drowned out by the cities. I'm not sure I feel that it's working that way.
-
I used to think you guys were mostly reasonable. This particular thread is the worst kind of gloom and doom ever.
The economy is growing.
More people voted in this election than EVER before despite the mysterious wholesale disenfranchisment of people which is wholly undocumented. This was a clean election with a clear winner in both popular vote and electoral vote.
The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.
Your choices extend far beyond merely voting once a year. If you really believe in something, take a serious action. Work harder for real change. Work within the system because no one takes those anarchists and anti-globalization people seriously. Without deeds, your words are as meaningless as those of all those Hollywood types who were all going to move to France four years ago but sadly didn't. If righteous indignation was all it took to win, this would be Gore's second term.
Chanting bumper stickers didn't work 4 years ago and it won't work now.
-
More people voted in this election than EVER before despite the mysterious wholesale disenfranchisment of people which is wholly undocumented. This was a clean election with a clear winner in both popular vote and electoral vote.
The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.
Your choices extend far beyond merely voting once a year. If you really believe in something, take a serious action. Work harder for real change. Work within the system because no one takes those anarchists and anti-globalization people seriously. Without deeds, your words are as meaningless as those of all those Hollywood types who were all going to move to France four years ago but sadly didn't. If righteous indignation was all it took to win, this would be Gore's second term.
Yes we have a clear winner but one that represents all the worst qualities of the Ugly American. Namely pride of his own ignorance, the use of his god as a crutch, and blatant disregard of the rest of the world.
These communities have made value judgments that contradict the basic principles of this country. Every argument against gay marriage and abortion is based in religion. Our Constitution invalidates all these arguments because it doesn't give a fuck about anybody's god. Yes communities across the country continue to throw their god in our faces and reduce freedom for millions of people in the process. I live in a community which holds secular reason above religious belief but this community is located within a state that goes the opposite direction. So my dumb-ass state is overriding my community standards. Our values are the basic ones of the Constitution, namely the freedom to keeps other's gods the fuck out of our lives. So its the rest of my state that needs to reevaluate.
My SO works at the Feminist Majority and I help them out. I was at the March for Women's Lives this year, I write all kinds of letters, I get the ACLU Action Updates, and I generally harass the hell out of my two dumb-ass senators who deserve some of Dante's more colorful ideas to be performed on them. So I definitely do more than just vote once a year. And yes, I do vote every year not just every 4.
-
ADawg, I think you might be jumping to some conclusions in your post. And as for this:
The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.
I find it extremely disturbing that you would espouse that viewpoint. Yes, I have a problem with the fact that the majority of the people who voted in Oregon feel that gays should not have the right to marry. Am I going to leave the state? No. Am I going to change my mind because those people don't agree with me? No. Do you really think I should do one of those two things? How about if I try to change their minds? Would that be better? Worse?
-
One answer I hear often here in Utah is that same-sex parents are ill-equipped to raise children.
Because I believe that a major part of raising children is making them watch their mother and father fuck.
I just can't understand that shit at all.
If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.
Ha, I'm actually doing the latter. SO LONG, BITCHES. (http://harpers.org/ElectingToLeave.html)
-
The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.
Your choices extend far beyond merely voting once a year. If you really believe in something, take a serious action. Work harder for real change. Work within the system because no one takes those anarchists and anti-globalization people seriously. Without deeds, your words are as meaningless as those of all those Hollywood types who were all going to move to France four years ago but sadly didn't. If righteous indignation was all it took to win, this would be Gore's second term.
That's true. Voting is almost meaningless if that's all you do. But I like that you encourage us to reevaluate our values or move to Canada if they don't seem to fit the values of any state, but then suggest we should work harder in the system for change. Come on, man, which one is it? Should I stay or should I go? I think it's completely wrong to tell someone to move if their values don't match the majority of the state in which they live. To JS Mill, difference in opinions and experiments in living were not only important to the individual to discover his true character, but also because of the real possibility that the majority COULD BE WRONG. But of course, because Bush is God's messenger, that can't be the case. But, if the majority is right, it should still value the opinion of minorities because revealing their falsehoods will only strengthen the opinion of the majority. I guess that's moot though because Bush is God's mouthpiece. But, hey, that's just Mill. But it seems that most people would agree that it's quite ok. And it's not like Bush won in a landslide. Kerry faired pretty well in the popular vote. My fellow liberals... we... are not... alone.
Chanting bumper stickers didn't work 4 years ago and it won't work now
Chants like: "Kerry's a Flip-Flopper, Kerry's a Flip-Flopper!"
"Protect marriage, protect marriage!"
"Don't let France have a veto over our national security, don't let France have a veto over our national security!"
Well, maybe that last one is a stretch, but, you know.
Anyway, I would say it worked pretty well. All Bush had to do was push a few hot button issues, and he had it. That, and campaign like a motherfucker in Ohio.
But still, I would say that his words more than his deeds impacted voters.
-
ADawg, I think you might be jumping to some conclusions in your post. And as for this:
The people of some states have made some decisions as a community as to what they value as a family and what they don't. I suggest not living in a State where the majority of people don't share your values. If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.
I find it extremely disturbing that you would espouse that viewpoint. Yes, I have a problem with the fact that the majority of the people who voted in Oregon feel that gays should not have the right to marry. Am I going to leave the state? No. Am I going to change my mind because those people don't agree with me? No. Do you really think I should do one of those two things? How about if I try to change their minds? Would that be better? Worse?
I concur with the above. I find myself profoundly troubled by the idea that the only response of the minority when faced with an inimical minority opinion is to yield to it -- either by moving (which seems like using legislation as a club against the minority, the lowest and most despicable application of "community standards" legislation) or by changing their opinions to match the majority. Democracy should fundamentally protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
(Note that I support the right of gay people or other legislated-against minorities to choose to move or otherwise yield to public expectation -- if that's what their most comfortable with, that's their choice to make -- but reject entirely the idea that legislation requires departure or acceptance. "Community standards" resulting in ostracism of otherwise-constructive individuals is totally unacceptable.)
-
One answer I hear often here in Utah is that same-sex parents are ill-equipped to raise children.
Because I believe that a major part of raising children is making them watch their mother and father fuck.
I just can't understand that shit at all.
If you find that is true in every state, I suggest either reevaluating your values or your decision to remain in the US.
Ha, I'm actually doing the latter. SO LONG, BITCHES. (http://harpers.org/ElectingToLeave.html)
That's great. Both comments, the article, just great.
And your signature is one of my favorite Morrissey lines. You are a cool dude.
-
Democracy should fundamentally protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Another one of Mill's.
The Bill of Rights was drafted to protect citizens from the encroachment on the rights by the government. The problem of Democracy is exactly that--that it doesn't protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Luckily we don't live in a Democracy, at least a pure one, so there are certain rights that an elected government can't strip away, without amending the constitution.
Which is what seems more and more likely to happen in the next few years.
And people say that this, the FMA, will be the first amendment to restrict rights, instead of restricting what the government can do. But I guess prohibition did that. Anyway, it's a complicated issue.
-
Democracy should fundamentally protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Another one of Mill's.
The Bill of Rights was drafted to protect citizens from the encroachment on the rights by the government. The problem of Democracy is exactly that--that it doesn't protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Luckily we don't live in a Democracy, at least a pure one, so there are certain rights that an elected government can't strip away, without amending the constitution..
This is true -- I apologize for my rustiness; it's been a few years since I did any of this particularly seriously. Anyway, I agree that democracy unchecked has the grave risk of subjecting the minority to the tyranny of the majority, but a properly-designed democratic government should take this into account and act in such a way as to discourage it.
-
I love you all too much to expect you to move to Zimbabwe.
My above point was twofold, if overly shrill:
1) If your community is completely and overwhelmingly involved in things that run counter to your values, you can try to change their minds, but your energy may well be better spent seeking out a community that shares your values. You will be happier and probably a lot healthier. And your chances of fomenting change are a lot better.
2) If the juice is worth the squeeze, do what you can to make change happen. But do it in ways that are meaningful and sustainable. I think the get-out-the vote efforts were awesome this election and for the most part the grassroots campaigning was pretty good. I think this election got a little personal on the candidates part but it also fomented more good discussion and honest assessment on both sides of the aisle than any election in a long time. I think a lot of people crossed lines on both sides, and that is a sign that the electorate is thinking. That is a good thing.
I didn't mean to suggest that you MOVE and then try to work in that community. I meant to suggest that you choose your battles and that your best bet is probably to work together in a community where people who think like you do can be found. Trust me, as a Conservative in Hawaii I'm not out there screaming at the top of my lungs. But I do intend to work for honest change at the local level because this place is FUBAR'd politically and I think I'm at a point now where I'm settled in enough to work on it.
There is a perceptible movement right here and I hope it keeps up at least long enough to balance things out.
I don't think push won on 'pushbutton issues'. I think he won because the US fairly overwhelmingly voted for security. I think Mr Kerry made a huge mistake when he mentioned a 'global test'; I think that most Americans are still not into the idea of polling the world before taking action to protect ourselves. Whether that idea is right or wrong I leave to you, but this election was incredible in terms of voter turnout and that used to be good for Democratic voters. It seems to me that Mr. Kerry was genuinely unpalatable for a lot of people who would have voted democratic - because new voters are usually either young or minority voters. It's something to think about.
-
All of you, listen up:
You.
Are.
Rad.
-
All of you, listen up:
I do like that basically every one here is agreeing to some extent. Most of the messages I've seen on other forums in the last few days have just angered me, and I don't like that much.
So you're all good, and I feel particularly sorry for the outcome for any of you living in the US (and the rest of us).
Anyway, I just wanted to point out two quotes I saw on /. that I thought were actually quite good.
"Bush got more votes than any American in history.
True. So, now when the American government makes aggressive and belicose blunders in the middle east the rest of the world won't just despise and deride the president, they'll hate the American people too. [We've] completely alienated ourselves from all our former allies and friends and earned the distrust and emnity of the rest of the planet."
"It's stramge, but too many Americans no longer understand the strengths of the US contitution, and fail to realise that those strengths actually allow the country to function in a time of war, and change presidents.
Well, guess what? They will have to do that in four years..."
Regarding Wil Wheaton (who I have a hell of a lot of respect for now) sayiong he has just learnt that he lives in a country that is very different to what he thought a night before, I guess I have felt like that here for a long time. There are too many attitudes in the UK, of the majority, that I just cannot understand... Maybe I am just more sensitive to it, in my left-wing way, I don't know.
-
I was very much surprised that Bush won by the margin that he did, but Kerry wasn't a very strong candidate and his refusal to take a stand on issues that were important to people, his wishiwashiness, and self-contradictions really hurt him, I think.
Yes, a lot of young people were being urged by the democrats to vote. A lot of new hispanic citizens were too. And guess what - many of them voted for BUSH.
It came down to a religion issue - Kerry was raised Catholic but is not very religious (he does not attend church services regularly) - Bush is whatever he is, and has spoken regularly about his faith.
When Kerry's camp learned that Bush was winning in the polls based on values and religion Kerry started to play up how important his faith is to him, but he sounded like a John Kerry Come Lately rather than a man of character who was expressing his views.
The real problem was that while Bush supports were voting FOR Bush, many people who voted for Kerry were not voting for Kerry, but AGAINST Bush. I was one of those people. I didn't really want Kerry to be president - I don't think he would have been good at the job - but I thought he may be better than Bush. I mean, I KNOW what the Bush administration has done to this country - and in good conscience I couldn't vote for him again.
Bush said in his acceptance speech that he would seek to earn our trust. Well, he already has mine. I think Bush is basically a decent man, and I would trust him to watch my children, hold my wallet, etc. I just don't think he's been a particularly good president. He's not very smart, and knows it, and it seems like he takes bad advice from people who have their own agendas and just runs with whatever Karl Rove and Dick Cheney say he should do.
Bush won on the terror issue - and the sad fact is that the country will probably be safer from terrorism with Bush in the White House. But at what cost? Do we have to give up the freedoms that make this country great in order to be secure?
I see two things happening in the next four years: reinstitution of the draft to garrison Iraq, and citizenship papers that all Americans will have to keep on their person and be prepared to display on random and routine checks in major cities.
It's just an extension of the new abilities the Patriot Act gives the government.
Will they make Jews wear a star of David on their armbands? I don't know. Maybe it'll be Arabs or Muslims wearing a little moon.
-
popular vote:
link to cspan election numbers (http://network.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2004/general/national/pres.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS)
Bush 59,150,654 51%
Kerry 55,592,568 48%
fifty-nine million one-hundred-fifty thousand six hundred and fifty four votes.
that is, indeed, a helluva lotta people who voted for george bush.
3,558,086 three million five-hundred fifty eight thousand and eighty six more people voted for Bush than voted for Kerry.
that is, indeed, a helluva lotta people. over three and a half MILLION people.
i have a hard time counting the people in line at Kroger's, let alone that
staggeringly large number of people.
i am not being facetious nor sarcastic.
the number of people who voted for Bush is signifigant and large.
the number of votes that Bush recieved in excess of Kerry is staggeringly large as well.
fifty-five million five hundred ninety two thousand five hundred and sixty eight people voted for Kerry.
this number is not quite as large as the number of people that voted for Bush.
does that mean it is not a staggeringly large number?
electoral vote-
link to cspan electoral college map (http://network.ap.org/dynamic/files/specials/election_night_2004/us_map_govsenhouse/index.html?SITE=CSPANELN&SECTION=POLITICS)
blue on the west coast. blue in the nother east. blue in the NFC north division (i thought about saying "midwest" or "great lakes" but those are not correct withouth ohio, indiana, etc. odd, though, that the NFC north states would be so aligned.)
a "sea of red" in the middle.
yet, in every single blue "state", even DC, people voted for Bush.
and in every single red state, even utah, people voted for Kerry.
accept that president bush has been reelected?
of course, certainly.
"accept" that president bush has has a mandate of the people?
"accept" that senator kerry, his campaign, and his party had no support?
edit-
here's a neat link. (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/03/purple_haze.html)
someone tookt he red vs blue EV map and "blurred" it apparently based on percentage etc.
apparently red plus blue equals purple.
-
Bush has a mandate, if you define "mandate" as "A claim made by a victorious candidate that the electorate has given him or her special authority to carry out campaign promises." If you define "mandate" as "We won, so why don't you remaining 48% get on the bandwagon", like Bush and Cheney did in their speeches yesterday, then no. 48% means "no support"? You're selling yourself toupees.
3% is not a landslide victory, like Nixon's 1972 win. ( And we saw how well that turned out, didn't we? ) But it wasn't a squeaker either, like in 2000 when Gore won.
Interesting election results from the pages of history (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781450.html).
-
The real landslide was Reagan v Mondale - a 49 state blasting of the man from Minnesota. He did win his home state and DC. Reagan went on to more-or-less bring the USSR to it's knees and force its destruction, as well as cause the Berlin wall to come down.
I think the potential 'Mandate' stems from the legislative gains as well as the number of states that approved measures supporting 'tradtional' values in terms of marriage. Added together, it seems that the country was rejecting the far left agenda of Senator Kerry - I think that had Senator Kerry been a more centrist candidate - like, say, Bill Clinton - he could have won. I agree with Limmo (Edit: Read "Limmo" as "JOUGH") that his sudden religious epiphany brought about by reading polls was rejected by a large portion of the public as insincere at best, and he had already lost a broad swath of Catholics due to activism within the Church in response to his views.
-
I agree with Limmo that his sudden religious epiphany brought about by reading polls was rejected by a large portion of the public as insincere at best, and he had already lost a broad swath of Catholics due to activism within the Church in response to his views.
Where exactly did I say that, AD?
-
I agree with Limmo (edit: That's pronounced Jough, the Limm is silent and the J is invisible) that his sudden religious epiphany brought about by reading polls was rejected by a large portion of the public as insincere at best, and he had already lost a broad swath of Catholics due to activism within the Church in response to his views.
Where exactly did I say that, AD?
You didn't.
It's the drugs. Actually further up Jough said that. And in spite of that, I still agree. :twisted:
-
Where exactly did I say that, AD?
I think he's referring to Jough's comment about Kerry jumping on the religion bandwagon to gain votes.
I'd CJ it, but I'm too lazy.
-
I've probably posted this before, but just in case: very good post on the Biblical origins of "gays/shrimp are an abomination," and their overturning, here (http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2004/07/the_abominable_.html).
This guy gets it wrong. In Acts of the Apostles, there was a big fight over whether or not gentiles -- who were allowed into Christianity by Jesus and by the story in the above essay -- should be circumcised. A whole bunch of Christians said, you have to follow Jewish law to be a Christian. Others said Christs fulfillment of the law made certain portions of it redundant. Eventually, Peter got everyone to agree that gentiles could keep their willies uncut (as my son's going to be). Basically, they crammed all of Jewish law into a quick set of rules.
a) Everybody has to obey the 10 commandments. That's just basic.
b) No drinking blood.
c) No eating a strangled animal.
d) No eating foo that's been offered up to another god.
e) Stay away from sexual immorality.
And e's the kicker. They didn't describe it any better than that. It's 'sexual immorality' in every translation I've seen. I assume that includes any sort of sex outside of marriage, and since there is no biblical precident for the marriage of two people of the same sex (that I know of), that means gay sex is out. That's where modern Christians get their ideas that shrimp is okay but banging the crap out of the lad or lass next door is a bad idea. I wish that rule were more specific, so we could lay to rest any sort of masturbation controversy. I mean, "don't drink blood" is clear and easy to follow. "Sexual immorality" is a bit more vague.
As to why people fight harder against homosexuality than promiscuity, I've got a partial answer. A lot of people think they're both wrong, but can at least understand one. It's hard for straight people to understand why you'd WANT to have homosexual relations. Because it's both wrong and incomrehensible to people, it's easy to hate.
-
edit-
here's a neat link. (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/03/purple_haze.html)
someone tookt he red vs blue EV map and "blurred" it apparently based on percentage etc.
apparently red plus blue equals purple.
I've been currently doing a lot of reading/schoolwork on information design, and what a huge difference it actually makes (the Challenger actually exploded because the chart which showed that the part would wear out was set up in an insanely confusing way). Thus, I've been really interested in how all of these electoral maps. That's (http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm) an interesting 2000 map broken down by counties.
Did they actually get a mandate? No.
Will they ACT like they got a mandate? I'm sure.
-
edit-
here's a neat link. (http://www.boingboing.net/2004/11/03/purple_haze.html)
someone tookt he red vs blue EV map and "blurred" it apparently based on percentage etc.
apparently red plus blue equals purple.
I've been currently doing a lot of reading/schoolwork on information design, and what a huge difference it actually makes (the Challenger actually exploded because the chart which showed that the part would wear out was set up in an insanely confusing way). Thus, I've been really interested in how all of these electoral maps. That's (http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm) an interesting 2000 map broken down by counties.
Did they actually get a mandate? No.
Will they ACT like they got a mandate? I'm sure.
Define mandate. The legislative gains and the constitutional questions seem to indicate a strong lean to the right which will last at least until the rest of the senate and another third of the house go to elections. I think this election was a plebiscite on values and the conduct of the war; the turnout proves that a lot of people care about the issues, and they went to the right with some authority, generally speaking. I'd say that, looking at it nationally over those three voting issues, yes, a clear message exists. Breaking it down to counties or census tracts or street addresses tells you how the votes may have been distributed but doesn't address the question of a national mandate.
-
Define mandate. The legislative gains and the constitutional questions seem to indicate a strong lean to the right which will last at least until the rest of the senate and another third of the house go to elections. I think this election was a plebiscite on values and the conduct of the war; the turnout proves that a lot of people care about the issues, and they went to the right with some authority, generally speaking. I'd say that, looking at it nationally over those three voting issues, yes, a clear message exists.
If you scroll up eight posts, I defined "mandate" twice.
For half the population, this was a plebiscite on values, and for the other half, it was about the conduct of the war and other real-world issues. The only "clear message" I'm getting from this election is that there's a gigantic disconnect between the two groups.
And no, 3% of the vote does not constitute going "to the right with some authority."
ETA: And in case you were wondering whether chimp-boy would go by my second definition, wonder no more (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=1&u=/ap/20041104/ap_on_el_pr/bush).
-
wouldn't congressional representatives have state mandates while presidents have national mandates?
-
I see that you created a definition and an alternate. I take your use of 'if' to indicate that I have a choice, so I'll disagree.
There's only a couple of ways to go here. I've been struggling a few threads over to be somewhat moderate on the gay marriage issue and here I'm kind of hoping people don't waste a lot of energy chanting 'not my president' and work, with people who think like you do, to bring about local and national change.
I do see a mandate. I see a nation that has obviously been impassioned and empowered. The majority spoke but a strong and vocal minority remains. I've always been willing to work with someone I generally disagree with on something we both can agree on. Those kinds of issues are the ones that have the most chance of seeing real change, so I hope those issues are identified and people learn that there's more to national politics than disagreement. Although I said above what I saw as a mandate, I think that working as Americans to make America a better place in a bi-partisan way is also something of a mandate.
-
Except I don't think like you do. You're a Christian conservative Republican, I'm an agnostic liberal Democrat. While it's heartening in a minor way to hear you're in favor of working with those you disagree with, I'm not under the impression that most of your brethren feel the same way. And the individual you just helped re-elect certainly doesn't. I agree with you that working in a bi-partisan way for the future of America would be wonderful thing. But that's not going to happen, is it?
Though I will say this in Bush's defense: in his little speech today, he let it slip that if you don't choose to worship, you're still patriotic. I knew that already, but it's nice to see he does, too.
-
Except I don't think like you do. You're a Christian conservative Republican, I'm an agnostic liberal Democrat. While it's heartening in a minor way to hear you're in favor of working with those you disagree with, I'm not under the impression that most of your brethren feel the same way. And the individual you just helped re-elect certainly doesn't. I agree with you that working in a bi-partisan way for the future of America would be wonderful thing. But that's not going to happen, is it?
Though I will say this in Bush's defense: in his little speech today, he let it slip that if you don't choose to worship, you're still patriotic. I knew that already, but it's nice to see he does, too.
I would totally work with you on something we both believe in. I would build a habitat house with a coalition of radical Islamists if they can concentrate on the house; and I bet if we talked long enough we could find an issue, particuarly a local issue, that we could work together on. One big difference between myself and a lot of other Christian Conservative Republicans is that I don't see the need to sell you Christianity as a prerequisite to working with your or hanging out with you. That's what causes a lot of problems - I don't wear my faith on my sleeve even though it's important to me.
-
I don't see the need to sell you Christianity as a prerequisite to working with your or hanging out with you. That's what causes a lot of problems - I don't wear my faith on my sleeve even though it's important to me.
Well, I wish there were more people like you.
-
I think the problem is that many people associate conservative Christians with Evangelical Christians. Which, as I understand it, are supposed to try to convert people and preach their faith. I was talking to our mail guy at work who is a born-again Evangelical and his argument was that it doesn't matter that the Constitution is secular because once we all see the light and accept Jesus &c we'll just re-write it.
-
This guy gets it wrong. In Acts of the Apostles, there was a big fight over whether or not gentiles -- who were allowed into Christianity by Jesus and by the story in the above essay -- should be circumcised. A whole bunch of Christians said, you have to follow Jewish law to be a Christian. Others said Christs fulfillment of the law made certain portions of it redundant. Eventually, Peter got everyone to agree that gentiles could keep their willies uncut (as my son's going to be). Basically, they crammed all of Jewish law into a quick set of rules.
Got a citation for this? I'd like to offer it to the guy at Slacktivist and see what he has to say about it.
-
Pedro, I've largely blocked out my early years of religious training, but I do remember that part. It's time to see if someone can CJ the Bible.
And I wanted to mention that every time I see this thread, I think, MORE BUSH! LESS FILLING!
-
Pedro, I've largely blocked out my early years of religious training, but I do remember that part. It's time to see if someone can CJ the Bible.
And I wanted to mention that every time I see this thread, I think, MORE BUSH! LESS FILLING!
That's not my thing (Catholics don't really read the Bible. We're funny that way) but there are several Bible searches, many of which can be added to Firefox's search bar.
Go here (http://mycroft.mozdev.org/) and click Religion in the category list.
-
That's not my thing (Catholics don't really read the Bible. We're funny that way) but there are several Bible searches, many of which can be added to Firefox's search bar.
Go here (http://mycroft.mozdev.org/) and click Religion in the category list.
I know Catholics and mainstream Christians hate mormons, right, but www.lds.org has a great search function, and the OT and NT online, KJV, full text. Just ignore the notes and the mormon scriptures. When you go to Search at the top, make sure you use the field under "Search the Scriptures." You don't search by topic, well you can kind of, but it's especially useful if you have a quote in mind and just can't remember the citation. Anyway.
-
As to why people fight harder against homosexuality than promiscuity, I've got a partial answer. A lot of people think they're both wrong, but can at least understand one. It's hard for straight people to understand why you'd WANT to have homosexual relations. Because it's both wrong and incomrehensible to people, it's easy to hate.
I think this is very insightful. And I'm very impressed by these pages and pages of well-reasoned, thoughtful, non-flaming discussion. Which however just give me the irresistable urge to be a wiseass:
As the great Jeff Rowland said about the gay marriage issue-
I always hear that the part of being married where you "do it" a lot fades after you get married, so what's the big deal? It's still gonna amount to two human beings sitting on a couch watching "The Apprentice," being secretly resentful of each other.
So shouldn't people who can't stand the idea of homosexual relations occurring, be in favor of as many gay marriages as possible?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thoughtful well-reasoned discussion.
-
Any two people can experience the beauty of that relationship. They don't need to be married for that to happen. It only takes passage of time.
-
Any two people can experience the beauty of that relationship. They don't need to be married for that to happen. It only takes passage of time.
Very true, and I appreciate that, but it's nice to think that when one of them dies, the other one isn't just left without any rights, despite having spent their lives together.
I don't care if it's called marriage or not, but there needs to be some sort of recognised civil union for gays and lesbians, as there is no comprehensible reason why they shouldn't be allowed the exact same rights as any other human being.
edit: Man I so cannot spell tonight!!
-
No, AlohaDawg. Stay off the Beach!
Slink, post that over at "I voted today" or the split they may make from it....
-
Got a citation for this? I'd like to offer it to the guy at Slacktivist and see what he has to say about it.
Sorry I didn't cite immediately:
Acts of the Apostles chapter 15, specifically verse 28. The whole chapter's pretty enlightening about the early Church, but the rules are in 28.
New International Version (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+15&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on)
-
stuff I said
I think this is very insightful.
Thanks, cutie!
And I'm very impressed by these pages and pages of well-reasoned, thoughtful, non-flaming discussion.
I'm impressed and delighted too. I wish open debate always went this well. Ideas are being expressed with a good deal of clarity here.
I always hear that the part of being married where you "do it" a lot fades after you get married, so what's the big deal? It's still gonna amount to two human beings sitting on a couch watching "The Apprentice," being secretly resentful of each other.
I've heard of this devolving to roommates thing before among couples with no kids, and seen it in one gay couple. It's kind of comical. I plan to avoid this by continuing to strut around the house naked long after my physical form has become more than a bit unpleasant.
-
I always hear that the part of being married where you "do it" a lot fades after you get married, so what's the big deal? It's still gonna amount to two human beings sitting on a couch watching "The Apprentice," being secretly resentful of each other.
I've heard of this devolving to roommates thing before among couples with no kids, and seen it in one gay couple. It's kind of comical. I plan to avoid this by continuing to strut around the house naked long after my physical form has become more than a bit unpleasant.
Ensuring that she is, instead, openly resentful?
-
I'll chip in for your kids and grandkids therapy, too.
There goes Grandpa again. I hope my sack never gets that long. He should wear underwear more. His knee is getting chafed.
-
I know this thread shrivelled and died at the mention of my testicles banging against my knees, but I'm resurrecting it because I really wanted to respond to some things last week, and I didn't have time. Please excuse me.
Every argument against gay marriage and abortion is based in religion.
For that matter every argument against theft is based on religion. Basically, the arguments lie in when and how it is appropriate for religious morals translate into secular ethics. I have reasonable evidence to support the claims that homosexuals and those who have yet to exit the womb are human beings. Therefore the one group shouldn't be witheld from entering into contracts as they please, and the other group should have the same protections given to other non-citizens in our country.
Marriage is a sacrament in my religion, but in my nation it's a contract. It has to do with the merging and separation of property and custody of children. My religion says that two men cannot enter into the sacrament together, but that doesn't mean that my nation should forbid their entering into the contract. My religion views divorce as an abomination, but that shouldn't affect contract law either.
Abortion is a big deal to me. I think we need to come together on a scientific definition for what constitutes a human being. I know it's hard since we're all just collections of cells, and it's possible for one person to have two sets of DNA. But until there's an agreed upon definition for a separate human organism, you'll excuse those of us that look to our religions for answers. When I hear that fetuses aren't people I recall the same thing being said about non-whites. Citizenship begins at birth, but life begins at conception. I suppose I could be convinced otherwise, but I think science is on my side at the moment.
Stem cell research -- while undoubtably beneficial -- calls the human experimentation of the Nazi regime to my mind. When I hear people saying "it's okay because they're not really people" that's what I think of.
The economy is growing.
It's not growing at a rate fast enough to account for the number of people entering the job market. Jobs are being added, but with new workers entering the force, the job/worker ration is sliding. (At least it was last time I looked at the numbers.) Also the new jobs are lower-paying. Please let me know if I have my facts wrong here. I'd love to be wrong about this.
I think Mr Kerry made a huge mistake when he mentioned a 'global test'; I think that most Americans are still not into the idea of polling the world before taking action to protect ourselves.
I think it was a mistake to mention this too, but only because he should have known that it was going to be misunderstood and distorted. He never said he would be polling the world prior to taking an action. He merely said he wouldn't take an action that he couldn't rationally explain to other nations if asked to do so. He wasn't saying he wanted Europe, Asia, and Africa to agree with his decisions, but only to agree that he might possibly have a good reason for taking them.
Not once in the buildup to war did I hear a clear rationale for going in. I heard "Saddam is a threat." but that wasn't reasonably backed up. If he had weapons of mass destruction, how would he deliver them? Certainly he had no ICBMs. If he were going to suitcase them (very possible) or hand them off to our enemies (highly unlikely) how would invading his country stop him from doing that. It seems to me that under threat of invasion, he would put into effect any such plans he had immediately. If the war was to stop him from developing weapons, then we would have to invade a great many more countries who are capable of doing so as well. Again, it seems this would step up the danger by making the need to develop America-deterents more pressing. Invading Iraq in order to stop oppression was not a popular reason before the war, and while it plays well in today's "world is a better place" speeches, it's not a good reason to spend my tax dollars killing civilians. There's too much oppression in the world for us to go about fixing other people's problems with our military. I'm not an isolationist, but I don't believe we should go about removing every dictator and oppressor.
So yeah, the phrase Global Test was an incompetent move on the Kerry campaign's part. The phrase he should have used was 'clear reason'. What was the clear reason for invading Iraq? Where was the last resort?
So that's pretty much what I meant to say last week. I'd love to continue discussing these issues here, because I don't feel that it's comfortable or fulfilling to discuss them with any other group of people I know.
PS - I won't let my package dangle when it starts to droop. I'll just make a special little belt-holster thing for it. That way I can stay quick on the draw.
-
The economy is growing, just not fast enough for you? If it grew faster would I hear "Oh god, the inflation!"?
As for the global test, I think that the most powerful nation on the planet has to be able to act and react as appropriate. I also think that the leadership has informatio we don't. Mr Kerry voted to go to war based on the information he had, which I think is the information everyone had. Then his misstatement about his voting for and against the support bill became a big deal as well. The MSM did as much damage to Kerry in those two instances as they did to Bush but I think Bush was better prepared and coached while I think Kerry's personality gave him confidence to speak off the cuff, which disserved him.
Previous administrations had taken some steps to create information stovepipes and the intelligence gathering systems were flawed. I think the outcome of systems and people from both sides working to make that system work better is a good start (if it's happening).
Newsweek Nov 15 edition will have a 50,000 word story from the reporters that were with both campaigns. MSNBC's website has excerpts and it's very telling in terms of what kind of people were running for president, how the conducted themselves off camera, and how campaigns like that are run. It's grotesque to say the least, on both sides - but interesting reading.
-
Before things get out of hand, abortion-talk has been split off.
And yeah, the temptation to put it in Sports and Leisure was mysteriously immense.
-
I also think that the leadership has informatio we don't. Mr Kerry voted to go to war based on the information he had, which I think is the information everyone had.
dude please read that transcript from that bbc show.
so, bush appointed wolfowitz as undersecratary of defense in feb of 2001. the same guy who was undersect of defense when senior went to kuwait. the same guy who was straining at the leash to go "all the way to baghdad" under bush senior. the same guy who apparantly believes in the neocon ideology that brought "team b" to the table, took over the cia, and told the president "the soviets must have secret weapons because we can't find them".
i agree completely with you that congress and the white house were probably both operating under the came information.
who supplied the information, though? people whose ideology states it's ok to lie so long as it combats moral relativism?
--
job market is severely relative. certain areas are going to be booming, while others will be failing. that happens all the time, i'm sure.
on the other hand, number, statitistics and damn lies and all. if 100 million new jobs open up in food service, i wouldn't call that a great boon to the nations economy...
-
I also think that the leadership has informatio we don't.
Yeah, see the Dave Chappelle sketch parody of Deep Impact. The leadership, man, they know shit. Shit that would blow your fuck*ng mind.
-
Every argument against gay marriage and abortion is based in religion.
For that matter every argument against theft is based on religion. Basically, the arguments lie in when and how it is appropriate for religious morals translate into secular ethics.
So I guess this was split off, but I couldn't find it?
Now, why is this necessarily the case (that every argument against theft is based on religion)? What makes you think that the prohibition against theft orignated with the Bible? Just because Moses said Don't Steal doesn't mean that no one had said it before him. There are many theories of the origins of morality, and they don't all start with God(s).
In response to CortJstr's statment, although many arguments against gay marriage are religious in nature, a lot of them are more along the lines of "it just ain't natural (whatever that means, but I hear it all the time)," or "I hate fags (probably the same as the previous argument, just more honest)." Also, a lot of studies have been conducted to show things like higher suicide rates and drug use rates among children of homosexual parents. Now, I don't buy these studies, but it's an attempt to re-frame the debate, because a lot of Americans are turned off by religious discourse in politics.
One problem I have with the studies is that there is the possibility that the child is distressed because of the stigma associated with his parents' relationship to each other. I don't know how the studies control for that. Also, do we want the government to set some kind of prenatal standard for parenting? I mean, aside from certain things like chemical dependency, generally the right to parent is generally guaranteed, and can only be taken away after abuse or neglect has occurred, or I suppose if it has occurred in the past with other children. I'm sure you could turn up studies showing children of interracial, religious, non-religious, fat, skinny, rich, poor or whatever parents to have higher rates for this or that.
And the point that every argument against abortion is religious in nature is just false. Read some Nat Hentoff stuff on the subject. He's oppsed to abortion, and is an atheist. It's being unreasonable to assume that only theists can oppose abortion. Gay marriage, to me, is a bogus issue (or at least was, in this election, from the conservative side), and Bush used it to his advantage. Abortion, however, is a very real issue, and it's far from decided. There are many ethical concerns involved, the two most important being that of the right of the fetus to live, and of course the right of the mother to choose. And it's not like either side has a lucid position that the other doesn't. Both positions have been well articulated, by religious and non-religious people on both sides.
-
The economy is growing, just not fast enough for you? If it grew faster would I hear "Oh god, the inflation!"?
Your point that people are never satisfied when they don't like who's in power is a good one, but there can be growth without high inflation. And no, if the economy isn't growing fast enough to employ the citizenry, it's not growing fast enough.
As for the global test, I think that the most powerful nation on the planet has to be able to act and react as appropriate.
Agreed. What's more, no one can stop us from doing so.
I also think that the leadership has informatio we don't.
The more Presidential history I read, the less I buy this excuse. I wanted to believe it in the buildup to war, but after we won and the President had every reason to reveal his information, he revealed nothing new. Johnson's White House tapes have been released, and he didn't have any special information. At one point he said "I don't want this Vietnam to be another Korea." He relied on his gut and the political situation at home, and made unforgivably bad decisions. Bush seems to have relied on his gut, a lying defector, and intelligence officials who knew full well what presentation of the available facts would make their boss happy, which interpretation would be best received. It's difficult in power to get underlings that tell you bad news. It's hard to tell brilliant men from yes men, because the yes men understand your genius.
I also think that the leadership has informatio we don't.
This quote bears repeating, because I absolutely believed it myself in the months leading up to war. I wanted to believe it, and so I did. But this covert ops crap is no way to run a democracy. If the people aren't informed about what their leadership is doing, they can't make good decisions on election day. Covert knowledge is no longer an excuse of any kind for me. I wasn't alive when Nixon promised us his secret plan, but I would have bought it if I were. I respect authority. But not secret authority. Not any more. If there's stuff you can't tell us for reasons of national security, you'd better find something true you CAN tell us because any charlatan can say "I'm brilliant, but the evidence of that is being kept secret for your protection." I would rather die free than live under a pretend democracy that's keeping secrets from the people from whom its power is supposedly derived.
Mr Kerry voted to go to war based on the information he had, which I think is the information everyone had. Then his misstatement about his voting for and against the support bill became a big deal as well.
I think Kerry and Edwards both voted for the war because they both wanted to be President, and they knew they could never ever be President if they voted against an American war. (Also, politicians will often vote to keep the Presidency powerful in preparation for they day they hold it.) I think the wheeling and dealing that made Kerry a great Senator (in terms of doing his job) also made him a terrible Presidential candidate. His voting record -- which only shows a portion of what goes on in Congress -- was a huge liability. But when asking for leadership, no one is going to accept the cop-out of, "This is what leadership looks like in the Senate! It looks like a wishy-washy voting record. It looks like compromise. I'm really a genius, but it's all in the back door dealings!" This is another secret genius thing, and while it's true it doesn't play well in an election, it shouldn't. Again Lyndon Johnson spent his whole career publicly bashing civil rights bills and privately supporting them until 1964 when used Kennedy's legacy to achieve the civil rights passage that Kennedy never could. Point is 1. Kerry is two-faced 2. That's how things get done 3. That's no excuse.
The MSM did as much damage to Kerry in those two instances as they did to Bush but I think Bush was better prepared and coached while I think Kerry's personality gave him confidence to speak off the cuff, which disserved him.
I don't know what MSM is, but I think this is a great analysis.
Previous administrations had taken some steps to create information stovepipes and the intelligence gathering systems were flawed. I think the outcome of systems and people from both sides working to make that system work better is a good start (if it's happening).
I also think this is a great description. I would add again, that the people at the higher levels of these systems are human and have an internal need to tell the boss what he wants to hear or at least present the truth in a way he wants to hear it. Good leadership takes this into account. Great leadership would be not letting the underlings know what you really want or even letting them think the opposite.
Newsweek Nov 15 edition will have a 50,000 word story from the reporters that were with both campaigns. MSNBC's website has excerpts and it's very telling in terms of what kind of people were running for president, how the conducted themselves off camera, and how campaigns like that are run. It's grotesque to say the least, on both sides - but interesting reading.
I look forward to reading it. It sounds awesome.
Please excuse the long post, people who don't like long posts. I know you're out there. I'm sorry I'm kind of long winded, but these things are important to me, and I don't have access to many people with whom I disagree and can still have a reasonable conversation. No one wants to talk about it. I think reasonable disagreement is really important. AlohaDawg, I think you're great.
-
So I guess this was split off, but I couldn't find it?
It's in wild card. It's apparantly going to be in the new video "Political Subjects Gone Wild". I guess it gets drunk and takes off its shirt. This issue kind of lacks self esteem and can't hold its liquor. I'll try to avoid it.
Now, why is this necessarily the case (that every argument against theft is based on religion)? What makes you think that the prohibition against theft orignated with the Bible? Just because Moses said Don't Steal doesn't mean that no one had said it before him. There are many theories of the origins of morality, and they don't all start with God(s).
aHA! But religion isn't always monotheism. You'll find that almost all religions have "don't steal" rules in them. I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion. If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected). That by itself can be considered a religion. You have good evidence to support that belief, but I'll bet you haven't done extensive research yourself, and have to take some of it on faith. Cogito ergo sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum) is the only ultimately provable science. From there you have to take everything (the changing reliability of your own senses and your fellow man) with a little bit of faith.
Also, a lot of studies have been conducted to show things like higher suicide rates and drug use rates among children of homosexual parents. Now, I don't buy these studies, but it's an attempt to re-frame the debate, because a lot of Americans are turned off by religious discourse in politics. ...other smart stuff...
I agree with you. These studies are bunk only useful to open new lines of discourse. They should be compared to children raised in foster care or raised in poverty. If a couple wants to have kids enough to adopt them, then those kids are automatically more fortunate than a lot of oops! babies.
...split-off topic stuff... Read some Nat Hentoff stuff on the subject. ... Both positions have been well articulated, by religious and non-religious people on both sides.
I will. Thanks for the tip.
-
I had promised myself I wouldn't jump in on this thread. I really had. But...
aHA! But religion isn't always monotheism. You'll find that almost all religions have "don't steal" rules in them. I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion. If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected). That by itself can be considered a religion. You have good evidence to support that belief, but I'll bet you haven't done extensive research yourself, and have to take some of it on faith. Cogito ergo sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum) is the only ultimately provable science. From there you have to take everything (the changing reliability of your own senses and your fellow man) with a little bit of faith.
I find it immensely patronizing and simplistic to have it stated that every system that involves faith (i.e. that involves any conclusions beyond the empirically obvious) is by its nature religious -- both because faith is not intrinsically religious (although religion is intrinsically faithful) and because it vastly cheapens the concept of religion to argue that any belief in anything (the goodness of an ordered society, the theory of gravity, that an hour from now it will be 12:26) represents somehow religious thought. I've had this thrown at me so many times from acquaintances who want to prove that science is religious -- or "no better than religion," as it is usually phrased, which is terribly insulting to both science and religion. Yes, any human endeavor is going to involve assumptions and leaps of logic (especially in large-scale sciences, where full proof of anything is unobservable in any human timeframe); this does not make the thought process in any way religious.
I will yield the point that many moral strictures began as religious ones. However, one can make many perfectly secular, logic-based arguments against, say, theft that don't rely on even your definition of "religious thinking." (For example, rampant theft causes an increase in violence -- I presume it is acceptable to state that large-scale violence can be stated as a bad idea without this intrinsically being religious? From a strictly economic perspective, theft damages economic systems by forcing businesses and individuals to expend undue resources on security measures, lowering profit margins, raising prices, and generally causing a drain of resources from the system.)
-
All this talk of following religions rules, and yet it says ' Thou shalt not kill'.
Y'all and Bush seem to be forgetting that one, regardless.
-
Thank you, V, for your post. I have a problem with some of this perspective:
I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion. If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected). That by itself can be considered a religion.
It seems somewhat circular. You said it better than I could, though.
-
Thank you, V, for your post. I have a problem with some of this perspective:
I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion. If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected). That by itself can be considered a religion.
It seems somewhat circular. You said it better than I could, though.
Well, it's the same reason that I get frustrated by the argument that, since Christ embodies goodness, "good" people are by definition Christian -- it's setting up a false paradigm in which it's established that all morality is intrinsically religious as a point not up to dispute. It very much is a point up to dispute, I think, especially given what it does to modern statecraft.
-
Now, why is this necessarily the case (that every argument against theft is based on religion)? What makes you think that the prohibition against theft orignated with the Bible? Just because Moses said Don't Steal doesn't mean that no one had said it before him. There are many theories of the origins of morality, and they don't all start with God(s).
aHA! But religion isn't always monotheism. You'll find that almost all religions have "don't steal" rules in them. I posit that all early societal laws were based on world views that were indistinguishable from religion. If you say that people shouldn't steal from eachother merely because that would weaken society, and for no other reason, then you are also saying that you believe in the fabric of society and that you believe it is good (ergo should be protected). That by itself can be considered a religion. You have good evidence to support that belief, but I'll bet you haven't done extensive research yourself, and have to take some of it on faith. Cogito ergo sum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum) is the only ultimately provable science. From there you have to take everything (the changing reliability of your own senses and your fellow man) with a little bit of faith.
That reminds me of Augustine. I read Confessions some time ago, and I remember at one point he argued that having faith in God isn't such a bad thing because we have faith in history. Thing is, I don't have faith in history, in the sense that Augustine wants me to have faith in God. I don't consider historical knowledge to be knowledge in that it is justified true belief. I believe things happen, and my belief may be true, but I can't justify it. It's more like practical knowledge. I don't know that the earth is spherical, that stars are giant balls of gas undergoing nuclear fusion as opposed to being holes in the firmament, or that George Washington was our nation's first president. But I believe all those things. They may very well be true, but I can't justify my beliefs, even if others can. Accepting God on faith is an entirely different project, because you are accepting something you have little or know practical knowledge of, and basing an entire life system around it. I don't know that the earth is spherical, but that doesn't really impact me. The problem I have with atheists and theists (not that I have a problem with them personally) is just that their claim is too strong. I don't think it really can be justified.
Descartes argued that the Cogito was the first instance of knowledge in human history. Though he did continue on to prove God's existence. However, millions of Philosophers and Scientists aren't fully convinced. Still, the man was fuck*ng brilliant.
So anyway, I haven't done extensive research on the history of morality. But I have read what people like Hobbes, Locke, and Nietzsche have to say about the subject. And morality doesn't always start with God or gods. I mean, if you buy Genesis it's easier to accept that, but if you believe humans evolved over millions of years, then it might be harder to prove that religious beliefs preceeded any kind of ethical system. I think one problem here is that we don't have a working definition of religion. You can call it what you want, but I think of it as something more than an ethical system. Like, you could say that murdering people for fun is wrong because you don't want to be murdered for fun. Stealing is wrong because I don't want my shit to get stolen. I don't see how that is relgion, at least in the sense that religion is used today. And while it may be the case that almost every religion has a Don't Steal rule, that still doesn't mean that religion invented it.
When people today talk about how they don't want laws to be based on strictly religious arguments, they mean that they don't want to hear lawmakers say "Killing is wrong because it's in the Bible." "Abortion is wrong because the Pope says so." "Fornication is wrong beacuse Paul said fornicators will go to hell." People want better justification than that. Although, you might end up with "Fags--that just ain't right. It ain't natural." Which, if anyone could tell me what people mean by natural in that context, I would appreciate it. Because sex is very natural. Birth control--that's a wonderful thing, but it ain't natural. I think they just mean gross.
Slink said that Bush and other conservatives seem to forget 'Thou Shalt Not Kill.' I don't think it's a fair reading of the Ten Commandments to say this. At the time, God was telling his people to kill all sorts of people, men, women and children. At ont point God commanded them to kill everyone save the young virgins (and you are forced to guess what was done with them, but little doubt remains in my mind). So either God or the writer of Exodus is completely stupid, or the command not to kill meant something else than just not killing. I know the Bible fairly well, but unfortunately I don't know Hebrew and I haven't studied anything besided the KJV, but I imagine the command not to kill doesn't preclude war or capital punishment, as those things abound in the OT. The ability to kill probably necessitates a command from God, and Bush really think that he has that. Which is actually scarier, in my mind, than someone who kills for only self-defense, or something like that.
-
The ability to kill probably necessitates a command from God, and Bush really think that he has that.
Well, yea. That was kind of my point. I know that the crusades were happening and shit, but Bush's attitude to non christians dying just doesn't seem to follow the whole 'treat others as you wish to be treated' philosophy that that Jesus guy was trying to put forward.
I think it would show a hell of a lot to terrorists and the world, if we would go and capture people like Osama Bin Laden, and not kill him. I know they capture Hussein alive, but look at the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died in Iraq, let alone the other members of Hussein's regime.
I read a quote on Gibson's blog I think, from a military commander of some sort in Iraq, saying that collateral damage is a good thing, as the civilian deaths will make the population question harbouring the terrorists.
That is just too fucked up. Do these guys even have consciences? Oh wait, yea, NO!
-
Well, the only deaths that should be on the conscience of military commanders should be their own troops.
I mean, if you're an officer and are commanded to go to war then it's your duty to do the best you can to win. It's like a lawyer defending a client he knows is guilty - he's still ethically required to do his best to defend the scumbag.
The real problem in Iraq is that EVERYONE is our enemy. If terrorists were killing police officers in Philadelphia I could be reasonably certain that they would not find safe haven in many homes here.
But since the terrorists and resistance fighters are supported by the general population, a larger number of civilian casualties will occur simply because the civilians aren't civilians - they're combattants as soon as they support the resistance fighters.
Now, whether we should be there at all is questionable, and how the American troops treat the Iraqi people (even when they are not killing them) is abysmal. Abu Ghraibe is hardly an isolated incident.
-
I am not a Hebrew scholar, but the "thou shalt not kill" Commandment, IIRC, is actually better translated as "thou shalt not murder." Then, as now, the question of what precisely constituted 'murder' was an open one -- and then, as now, deaths as a result of war and/or God telling you to were considered non-murderous. (Today we have a more strict attitude on exemptions due to divine will, though.)
-
The real problem in Iraq is that EVERYONE is our enemy.
This is just a difference in the methodology of warfare between the US and the UK that has gne back a long way. Even in WW2, British forces avoided all collateral damage. I can respect that you ought to stop your own troops dying, yet somehow we do so without as much collateral damage as the US military.
With events in Fallujah, the US were at one point asking our troops to keep everywhere else safe, as they can do so without so much unnecessary death, while the US go in and drop as many bombs as they have on the streets of Fallujah.
If there were terrorists in your city, and you were refusing to harbour them, but they still couldn't be flushed out, would you be happy to see your family die because bombs were dropped?