Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[AlohaDawg]

No, AlohaDawg. Stay off the Beach!

Slink, post that over at "I voted today" or the split they may make from it....

[Pedro Picasso]

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

[Pedro Picasso]

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.

[Nabubrush]

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?

[AlohaDawg]

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.

[Pedro Picasso]

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.

[AlohaDawg]

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.

[andalucia]

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.

[arkabee]

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...

[miles]

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.

[miles]

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.

[Pedro Picasso]

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.

[Pedro Picasso]

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 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.

[V-Adore]

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 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.)

[slink]

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.