First time for everything



  • Well, it appears the Americans have finally elected their first non-white president. Now taking bets on how long before they elect a non-christian.

    On a side note I would pay good money for a video of the faces of white supremacists when they anounced the election results. I would also pay good money for a video of the faces of christian fundamentalists when/if they elect a non-christian president.

    Yes, I have a mean streak... 



  • @DOA said:

    Now taking bets on how long before they elect a non-christian.
    My bet is on that coinciding with our first robot president.



  • I think it is a fundamental flaw of our nation that we even NOTICE that he is the first black President. I am no Republican, but I doubt if as big a deal would have been made if Sarah Palin was the first woman VP. Regardless, these things should not matter.

    I wasn't fond of either party's ticket and voted third-party myself. That being said, I do have hope that with a single party in control of both the White House and Congress, that some accomplishments might be made where party politics doesn't constantly interfere. Obama has the chance to make the same kind of impression on this country in a time of need as FDR did. We can judge his worthiness after the fact.

     That is all.

     



  • @jpaull said:

    ...

    That being said, I do have hope that with a single party in control of both the White House and Congress, that some accomplishments might be made where party politics doesn't constantly interfere. Obama has the chance to make the same kind of impression on this country in a time of need as FDR did. We can judge his worthiness after the fact.

     That is all.

     

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)

    Others would argue that the entire purpose of our governmental system is to be so bogged down that change can only occur very slowly, and that "getting things done" is anathema to the benefit of the country.

    Personally, all I want out of the government is to ensure that people are responsible for their own actions, reap the just rewards of their efforts, and they don't beat each other up or get beat up by other countries. I don't want the government to fix my problems, give me money, rescue me, or solve the problems of foreign countries (or make problems in foreign countries). The farthest I'll go is that the government should provide good incentive for people to better themselves.

    So while I like the things the new President-elect has said about education and foreign relations, I dislike the bits about healthcare (I actually don't agree that it's a fundamental right - TANSTAAFL and all that) and entitlements (I don't care about increased taxes for certain brackets, I just don't like that the proposal is to hand it out to others just because they don't have anything. Tax credits for certain behavior I don't mind so much though as I agree with incentives - basically, I'll reward you for certain actions, but I definitely will not reward you for inaction).

    What I really like about the election, though, is that more than the person elected, the people have given themselves hope, and that will do more than a single administration could do any term.



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)
    Many grammar nazis would argue that this was the mostest worsterestest sentence ever, too.  But on the serious tip, FDR did a lot of things that weren't particularly good coughSocial Securitycough, but he's well remembered because he gave people hope.  The question is, how much more can a president really do than give people hope?



  • @bstorer said:

    @too_many_usernames said:

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)

     

    Ah geez, I can't even claim coffee deficiency on that one....maybe I'll do more better next time ;-)

    (I deserve all the backlash I'll get on this too; it's hard to stay credible when you say you esteem grammatical diligence when you err and the edit timer expires before you catch it.)



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)

    I see your point. However, note that I did not say that FDR was a "good" president, I simply said that he had made a distinct impression in a time of need. :)



  • @bstorer said:

    @too_many_usernames said:

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)
    Many grammar nazis would argue that this was the mostest worsterestest sentence ever, too.  But on the serious tip, FDR did a lot of things that weren't particularly good coughSocial Securitycough, but he's well remembered because he gave people hope.  The question is, how much more can a president really do than give people hope?

    How about not pushing the economy into a 13-year-long depression that left the country as crippled as his useless, withered legs?

     

    Oh, but he gave us hope, that's right.  So it's alright to devastate a country so long as you also let the citizens know that one day they will be free of your insane, tyrranical rule.  Good to know. 



  • @jpaull said:

    I think it is a fundamental flaw of our nation that we even NOTICE that he is the first black President.

    Damn straight.  I understand it is a big event, but come the fuck on.  This whole election was a depressing show of racism by our nation and media.  If race was not an issue, then he would have been judged as a candidate and not as "the black candidate".  Unfortunately, assholets on the Right and the Left continue to propagate racism and encourage and exploit racial divisions to gain power.

     

    @jpaull said:

    That being said, I do have hope that with a single party in control of both the White House and Congress, that some accomplishments might be made where party politics doesn't constantly interfere.

    That doesn't even make sense.  You don't like either party's ticket but it's better to have a single-party system instead of checks and balances?  This isn't the Soviet Union.  Well...  yet...

     

    @jpaull said:

    Obama has the chance to make the same kind of impression on this country in a time of need as FDR did.

    We're still quite damaged from the "impression" that dumbfuck left on us.  How about we try electing leaders who aren't terrible?  Just a thought... 



  • @DOA said:

    On a side note I would pay good money for a video of the faces of white supremacists when they anounced the election results.

    As would I for the black supremecists.  We've got to shine light on these fuckers and show how twisted they are.

     

    @DOA said:

    I would also pay good money for a video of the faces of christian fundamentalists when/if they elect a non-christian president.

    Yes, I have a mean streak...

    No, you're a religious screwball.  You're just as bad as any Bible-beating wackjob.  You're engaging in petty retribution against a religion you don't care for, which makes you a sad, pathetic little man.  Then again, that's not news.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    No, you're a religious screwball.  You're just as bad as any Bible-beating wackjob.  You're engaging in petty retribution against a religion you don't care for, which makes you a sad, pathetic little man.  Then again, that's not news.
    I'm engaging in petty retribution by imagining how somebody's face would look in an imaginary scenario where I couldn't possibly have the slightest involvement? What? Are you off your medication again?



  • @DOA said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    No, you're a religious screwball.  You're just as bad as any Bible-beating wackjob.  You're engaging in petty retribution against a religion you don't care for, which makes you a sad, pathetic little man.  Then again, that's not news.
    I'm engaging in petty retribution by imagining how somebody's face would look in an imaginary scenario where I couldn't possibly have the slightest involvement? What? Are you off your medication again?

    You even admitted you have a mean streak.  You just want to see Christians upset that someone they don't support will rule their lives.  Yes, that makes you an asshole. 



  • @too_many_usernames said:

    @bstorer said:

    @too_many_usernames said:

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)

     

    Ah geez, I can't even claim coffee deficiency on that one....maybe I'll do more better next time ;-)

    (I deserve all the backlash I'll get on this too; it's hard to stay credible when you say you esteem grammatical diligence when you err and the edit timer expires before you catch it.)

     

    Aww, and so soon after trying to bash me for my gramatical mistakes? too_many_usernames meet kettle, kettle this asshat.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    You even admitted you have a mean streak.  You just want to see Christians upset that someone they don't support will rule their lives.  Yes, that makes you an asshole.
    Guess it takes one to know one.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

     You just want to see Christians upset that someone they don't support will rule their lives.  Yes, that makes you an asshole. 

    Christians seem very happy to direct their rule on the rest of the world.  I would love to see someone running a country point out that christians (or anyone else) do not deserve special support just because of their beliefs.  They are subject to the same world as the rest of us and what they believe is no more legitimate than what I believe, even if it contradicts their narrow world. 

     



  • @LoztInSpace said:

    I would love to see someone running a country point out that christians (or anyone else) do not deserve special support just because of their beliefs.
    That would be every first-world nation you're describing. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make, but I do know you're making it poorly.



  • @LoztInSpace said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

     You just want to see Christians upset that someone they don't support will rule their lives.  Yes, that makes you an asshole. 

    Christians seem very happy to direct their rule on the rest of the world.  I would love to see someone running a country point out that christians (or anyone else) do not deserve special support just because of their beliefs.  They are subject to the same world as the rest of us and what they believe is no more legitimate than what I believe, even if it contradicts their narrow world. 

     

     

    what the fuck are you talking about?  Christians don't try and direct their rule on other people any more than everybody tried to direct their rule on other people.  Yes, some christians evangelize, but they haven't declared any holy wars in the last 700 or so years.   I also don't know of any christian country that has persecuted people that live their that aren't christians in modern history.  And if you are going to argue about imperialism of the Americas, that is a farce, because pretty much all of the violent conquerors were after gold, and used christianity as a thin veil to cover their actions.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @too_many_usernames said:

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)
    Many grammar nazis would argue that this was the mostest worsterestest sentence ever, too.  But on the serious tip, FDR did a lot of things that weren't particularly good coughSocial Securitycough, but he's well remembered because he gave people hope.  The question is, how much more can a president really do than give people hope?

    How about not pushing the economy into a 13-year-long depression that left the country as crippled as his useless, withered legs?

     

    Oh, but he gave us hope, that's right.  So it's alright to devastate a country so long as you also let the citizens know that one day they will be free of your insane, tyrranical rule.  Good to know. 

    You've been listening to Biden too much.  FDR wasn't even in office when the economy went into the tank.



  • @bstorer said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @bstorer said:

    @too_many_usernames said:

    Many historians would argue that FDR was the most worst president to ever serve this country though ;-)
    Many grammar nazis would argue that this was the mostest worsterestest sentence ever, too.  But on the serious tip, FDR did a lot of things that weren't particularly good coughSocial Securitycough, but he's well remembered because he gave people hope.  The question is, how much more can a president really do than give people hope?

    How about not pushing the economy into a 13-year-long depression that left the country as crippled as his useless, withered legs?

     

    Oh, but he gave us hope, that's right.  So it's alright to devastate a country so long as you also let the citizens know that one day they will be free of your insane, tyrranical rule.  Good to know. 

    You've been listening to Biden too much.  FDR wasn't even in office when the economy went into the tank.

    Half credit.  The stock market crash happened under Hoover and he attempted to shore up the economy with bailouts, fiat currency and bank seizures.  All this led to further economic devastation.  Sound familiar?  However, when FDR took over he simply fucked the system to hell.  He destablized the banks, outlawed gold, fucked up the currency, established minimum wage laws that put millions out of work in months, established price controls that led to shortages, set up massive agricultural subsidies that used taxpayer money to destroy ungodly amounts of food while people were going hungry, set a 95% tax rate on the wealthiest people, launched a campaign of Communist anti-wealth class warfare that led a lot of wealthy people to hide their money and further limit available capital... I could go on and on. 



  • @tster said:

    Christians don't try and direct their rule on other people any more than everybody tried to direct their rule on other people.

    Agreed, for the most part.  I'm not fond of the social conservatism they preach, but Christians don't try to force their faith on people any more than the wacky Left.  Honestly, the Left is probably worse.

     

    @tster said:

    I also don't know of any christian country that has persecuted people that live their that aren't christians in modern history.

    The only example I can think of is some of the genocide that went on in the Balkans.  That place has been fucked up for so long, it's hard to keep track of who is murdering who.  There are probably another few examples, but American and European Christians have generally advanced along with Western Civilization.



  • Not wanting, trying or wanting to offend anyone.

    I just can't help thinking that there must be someone thinking, after the mess Bush left behind: "good, we'll let the n*** clean up."

    Anyways, congratulations with the soon to be and hopefully better president.

     

     



  • @Weps said:

    Not wanting, trying or wanting to offend anyone.

    I just can't help thinking that there must be someone thinking, after the mess Bush left behind: "good, we'll let the n*** clean up."

    Anyways, congratulations with the soon to be and hopefully better president.

     

     

    I have heard reports that many white supremacists wanted Obama to win because they think he will mess it up and finally all the non-racists will realize that black people really are morons.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:

    Christians don't try and direct their rule on other people any more than everybody tried to direct their rule on other people.

    Agreed, for the most part.  I'm not fond of the social conservatism they preach, but Christians don't try to force their faith on people any more than the wacky Left.  Honestly, the Left is probably worse.

     

     

    don't forget the right wing crazy ass illogical, non pragmatic, social policies.  i think you'll find they impose their social view much more than the left, ie. abortion, gay marriage, teaching religion in schools, no needle exchages, promoting celibacy over condoms. etc. 

    The thing about more left leaning political views is that they are trying to provide a framework for people to make decisions about social issues based on personal preference rather than the right wing idea of just making a black and white rule and forcing everyone to live by it.

    And there is also the nut bag libertarians, lol.  But there aren't really enough of them to make any difference(mainly because it's such a dumb idea).



  • @element[0] said:

    don't forget the right wing crazy ass illogical, non pragmatic, social policies.

    OK, let us consider these policies. 

    @element[0] said:

    abortion
     

     Yeah, I think it's crazy to consider the murder of unborn babies something that should be against the law.  Honestly, I don't know how you can defend abortion.  Follow this line of thinking:

    1.  It is illegal and should be illegal to kill a child.

    2.  Hence it should be illegal to kill a baby, after all, at what age should the cutoff come.  If it is illegal to kill a person that is 5 years old, why would it be illegal to kill a person that is 1 year old, or for taht matter 1 day old or 1 minute old.

    3.  If it should be illegal to kill a baby that is 1 minute old, how can you argue that it should be legal to kill it 61 seconds earlier.  Is the baby less of a human being just because it is still inside of the mother?

    4.  If it should be illegal to kill a baby 1 second before birth then why should it be legal to kill it 10 minutes before birth, or 1 day, or 1 month? 

    5.  Where do you draw the line?  You can't define any arbitrary line unless it is related to the growth of the unborn baby directly (not just, the end of the second trimester, or something like that)

    I am not going to say what the best point to draw the line is.  If you draw it at conception you have a real problem because then you can't use hormonal birth control.  I personally consider the line to be when the fertilized egg attaches to wall of the uterus because that's when it actually starts to grow and becomes a viable human being.  

    I assume that you think murder should be illegal, so I don't know what possible argument you could make to allow the murder of an unborn baby.  My little brother was born a month premature.  Are you going to argue that it should be illegal to murder a premature baby but illegal to murder an unborn one even though there are unborn babies that are more developed than the premature babies?

    @element[0] said:

    gay marriage
     

    Personally I swing back and forth on gay marriage.  However, I have to argue that if you support gay marriage you must also support polygamy or else you are a hypocrite.

    @element[0] said:

    teaching religion in schools
     

    Most conservatives don't want religion taught in schools.  Some want creation taught as an alternative to evolution, but what I find is that those are not "conservatives," but in fact they are "statists" who hold much different beliefs than conservatives.

    @element[0] said:

    no needle exchages
     

    You mean we don't want to pay for drug addicts to use clean needles?  Holy shit, we are cruel mother fuckers.  I didn't realize people out there still think needle exchanges are a good idea.

    @element[0] said:

    promoting celibacy over condoms
     

    how is this "crazy", "illogical", or "non pragmatic?"  Obviously abstinence is the safest choice when it comes to: pregnancy, STDs, and emotional development.  I'm not advocating outlawing condoms for minors or anything, but I don't think we should be giving them condoms in middle school and telling them to do whatever they want.  Children have poor judgment, and it's the parent's job to ensure their safety, both physical and emotional.   It is society's job to allow the parents to excercize their judgement and not subvert what they tell their children.

    @element[0] said:

      The thing about more left leaning political views is that they are trying to provide a framework for people to make decisions about social issues based on personal preference rather than the right wing idea of just making a black and white rule and forcing everyone to live by it.

    My personal preference is to not be murdered, not pay for other people to use heroin, and not have my children being told that it's ok to have sex in 6th grade so long as you use a condom.   I feel that these rights should be extended to all people.  You, I guess, believe that it's OK to kill people so long as nobody values their life; take, by force, people's money and use it to inject heroin into your body; and take, by force (since education is compulsory), my children and tell them that it's OK to have sex so long as it feels right to them.

    @element[0] said:

     And there is also the nut bag libertarians, lol.  But there aren't really enough of them to make any difference(mainly because it's such a dumb idea).

     

    I'm sorry, your going to have to explain to me how libertarianism is "nut bag" and "dumb."  They believe in personal freedom and responsibility.  You can't simply dismiss a major political movement on a whim and assume people will not think that you are a moron and a simpleton.

    There are probably more libertarians than you might think too.  Just because Bob Barr got about 1% of the vote doesn't mean there weren't lots of libertarians that would vote for him if he had a chance to win.



  • @element[0] said:

    don't forget the right wing crazy ass illogical, non pragmatic, social policies.  i think you'll find they impose their social view much more than the left, ie. abortion, gay marriage, teaching religion in schools, no needle exchages, promoting celibacy over condoms. etc. 

    It's those policies I was referring to.  However, the Left does it just as badly with multi-culturalism, ecoworship, gun control and teaching Sex Ed to five year olds.  The Religious Right annoys me but they've never gone through my trash looking for recyclables that were thrown out, they have never tried to take away my right to defend myself, they have never tried to teach me that all the problems of the world are the fault of white men nor have they have not created widespread crime and poverty by undermining the family.  The Bible-beaters can be quite pushy, but they haven't succeeded in getting much of their dogma into public education.  On the other hand, the Left has succeeding in teaching children moral relativism and has used revisionist history to push the notion that Communism has a reasonable and successful doctrine.

     

    @element[0] said:

    The thing about more left leaning political views is that they are trying to provide a framework for people to make decisions about social issues based on personal preference rather than the right wing idea of just making a black and white rule and forcing everyone to live by it.

    It's funny you should mention "black and white", because it almost seems to me that there are more racists on the Left than the Right.  This whole election liberals were going on about how significant it is that a black man was running for President and how America is too racist to support a black President (although evidently it's not racist to assume an individual's identity primarily by their race, nor is it racist to act as if the victory of one black person is a victory for all black people; imagine if John McCain had won and the media had painted it as a victory for whites.)  To me, at least, it seems not being racist means judging each person as an individual and not by their race.  I can't tell you how much I hate when black Americans are called "Africans".  They are American, for fuck's sake!  Their families have been here longer than most of ours!  I don't see how liberals jumped from "treating black people as different and less than white people is wrong" to "black people should be treated as a collective and the differences between cultures and races should be amplified and celebrated instead of just taken as-is".  People should be treated as individuals, plain and simple.

     

    @element[0] said:

    And there is also the nut bag libertarians, lol.  But there aren't really enough of them to make any difference(mainly because it's such a dumb idea).

    Well, arguably they're a pretty strong movement within the Republican Party.  The Libertarian Party doesn't stand much chance simply because it is a third party.  I don't see what is such a dumb idea about economic and social freedom and self-determination.  Another thing to consider is that there are a decent number of Democrats who are fundamentally in favor of free markets as well as several third parties other than the LP that are mostly libertarian in nature.



  • @Weps said:

    I just can't help thinking that there must be someone thinking, after the mess Bush left behind: "good, we'll let the n*** clean up."

    I don't think anyone is thinking that.  It's similar to the reasoning I threw in the faces of idiot Democrats who told me America was too racist to elect a black man: racists aren't voting Democratic anyway.  Well, racists also aren't figure a black man will fix anything.  People who think Obama will fix anything aren't racist.  Also, there are plenty of people like myself who know that Obama will only make matters worse but who also aren't racist.

     

    @Weps said:

    Anyways, congratulations with the soon to be and hopefully better president.

    I wish I could accept, but this is an unwanted problem for a great deal of us.



  •  For crying out loud, guys, you've got rid of the administration that dreamed up Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck.How much worse can the new lot be?



  • @Jake Grey said:

     For crying out loud, guys, you've got rid of the administration that dreamed up Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck.How much worse can the new lot be?

    a lot worse?



  • @tster said:

    I am not going to say what the best point to draw the line is.  If you draw it at conception you have a real problem because then you can't use hormonal birth control.  I personally consider the line to be when the fertilized egg attaches to wall of the uterus because that's when it actually starts to grow and becomes a viable human being.  

    I assume that you think murder should be illegal, so I don't know what possible argument you could make to allow the murder of an unborn baby.  My little brother was born a month premature.  Are you going to argue that it should be illegal to murder a premature baby but illegal to murder an unborn one even though there are unborn babies that are more developed than the premature babies?

    All laws are arbitrary.  I guess if you are religious you believe morality comes from a higher being, but I personally think it is an outgrowth of empathy which itself is an evolutionary trait that is advantageous to a species.  Regardless, morality is rarely a clear thing but laws always must be.  It's simply a compromise we accept.  How can an action be statutory rape one day and consensual sex the very next?  The end-of-second-trimester rule actually dates back to ancient Judaism where Rabbis conferred and decided that prior to that point the soul had not entered the body so it was not murder.  Ultimately, I think our current abortion laws are a decent compromise that values life but also tries to deal with the reality that people will always have abortions and that making it illegal only makes it more dangerous and harder to correct.  How come you either believe in the sanctity of life or that a woman has a right to decide?  How come neither side tries to address the real issue: unwanted pregnancies.  Get rid of those and abortion will become so much less prevalent.  I think the pro-lifers have hurt their case by trying to oppose abortion instead of trying to address unwanted pregnancies.

     

    @tster said:

    Personally I swing back and forth on gay marriage.  However, I have to argue that if you support gay marriage you must also support polygamy or else you are a hypocrite.

    Explain.  Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and to treat them as second-class citizens over a God-given trait they have no control over is bullshit.  Humans aren't naturally monogamous, either, but it provides social stability so we hang on to it.  At the core, though, I don't care if a religion doesn't want to recognize gay marriages.  The only thing government has to do with it is whether it will grant the same rights to homosexuals as heterosexuals (including marriage, specifically using that word, none of this "civil unions" nonsense).  The government recognizes marriages because they provide a stable foundation for family which is the fundamental unit of society.  The benefits of family are realized whether the participants are gay or not.  However, polygamy does not provide social stability, so recognizing it in law is not a good idea.  Personally, I don't care if people want to share partners, but when it comes to marriage I believe it needs to be between one man or woman and another man or woman.

     

    @tster said:

    Most conservatives don't want religion taught in schools.  Some want creation taught as an alternative to evolution, but what I find is that those are not "conservatives," but in fact they are "statists" who hold much different beliefs than conservatives.

    Right.  The wackos who want to force everyone else to convert to their religion are not in line with the objectives of conservatism.  Remember, most of the fundies don't want religion taught in school because they don't want their children taught Islam, Hinduism, etc..  These people are capable of empathy and they aren't wanting something done to someone else's kids they wouldn't have done to their own.  I think Conservative Christians often have a difficult time separating the goal (morality) from the reason (faith).  Often they are concerned about the moral decline our country is in, as am I.  They tend to fall back on the Bible and their faith a lot and intertwine it with their mission, but most aren't looking to establish a theocracy, they just want to reverse the moral decay.

     

    @tster said:

    You mean we don't want to pay for drug addicts to use clean needles?  Holy shit, we are cruel mother fuckers.  I didn't realize people out there still think needle exchanges are a good idea.

    I have a hard time deciding on this.  I understand the reasoning of both sides but I can't decide if public health concerns warrant the forcible collection of money from taxpayers to subsidize someone's drug habit.

     

    @tster said:

    how is this "crazy", "illogical", or "non pragmatic?"  Obviously abstinence is the safest choice when it comes to: pregnancy, STDs, and emotional development.  I'm not advocating outlawing condoms for minors or anything, but I don't think we should be giving them condoms in middle school and telling them to do whatever they want.  Children have poor judgment, and it's the parent's job to ensure their safety, both physical and emotional.   It is society's job to allow the parents to excercize their judgement and not subvert what they tell their children.

    Agreed, for the most part.  Abstinence-only education is silly, but abstinence-first is totally cool.  I don't think adolescents should be given condoms but I do think they need to be discretely available.  Some kids will experiment and you can be damn sure that if condoms are hard or embarrassing to get, they won't use them. 



  • @tster said:

    @Jake Grey said:

    For crying out loud, guys, you've got rid of the administration that dreamed up Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck.How much worse can the new lot be?

    a lot worse?

    No shit.  Bush wasn't a good President, but he didn't fuck things up as badly as Nixon, Johnson or FDR. 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @tster said:

    Personally I swing back and forth on gay marriage.  However, I have to argue that if you support gay marriage you must also support polygamy or else you are a hypocrite.

    Explain.  Homosexuality is a natural occurrence and to treat them as second-class citizens over a God-given trait they have no control over is bullshit.  Humans aren't naturally monogamous, either, but it provides social stability so we hang on to it.

     

    How does polygamy not provide "social stability?"  Many cultures that lasted a long time (and some that still exist) practiced polygamy.  Polygamy forms a very stable large family system where people very rarely are overlooked or go without because they have a large and close family to help them.  Polygamists aren't womanizers who keep their women seperate and secret from each other.  The women work together and live together.  If this is how some people want to live I don't see how you can treat them as second-class citizens over a God-given trait they have no control over.  

    However, there are some reasons to be against gay marriage:

    1.  Same-sex couples cannot reproduce naturally, hence the union is not natural.  You can think of them as evolutionarily broken.  The primary instinct of all animals is to live and reproduce.  Their instinct to reproduce is appearantly broken.

    2.  Normalizing abnormal behavior tends to increase the prevelance of the behavior.  

    3.  There is value in children having both a mother and a father figure at home. 

    4.  Slippery slope arguments actually do apply.  If you can have gay marriages, then you need polygamist marriages as well. 

     

    I'm not saying I'm against gay marriage, just that there are valid arguments against it.   Mostly I just get caught up and the whole nature thing with sexual reproduction.



  • Just for the record:  I don't believe in any god.



  •  @tster said:



    @element[0] said:
    don't forget the right wing crazy ass illogical, non pragmatic, social policies.


    OK, let us consider these policies.

    @element[0] said:
    abortion


     Yeah, I think it's crazy to consider the murder of unborn babies something that should be against the law.  Honestly, I don't know how you can defend abortion.  Follow this line of thinking:

    1.  It is illegal and should be illegal to kill a child.

    2.  Hence it should be illegal to kill a baby, after all, at what age should the cutoff come.  If it is illegal to kill a person that is 5 years old, why would it be illegal to kill a person that is 1 year old, or for taht matter 1 day old or 1 minute old.

    3.  If it should be illegal to kill a baby that is 1 minute old, how can you argue that it should be legal to kill it 61 seconds earlier.  Is the baby less of a human being just because it is still inside of the mother?

    4.  If it should be illegal to kill a baby 1 second before birth then why should it be legal to kill it 10 minutes before birth, or 1 day, or 1 month?

    5.  Where do you draw the line?  You can't define any arbitrary line unless it is related to the growth of the unborn baby directly (not just, the end of the second trimester, or something like that)

    I am not going to say what the best point to draw the line is.  If you draw it at conception you have a real problem because then you can't use hormonal birth control.  I personally consider the line to be when the fertilized egg attaches to wall of the uterus because that's when it actually starts to grow and becomes a viable human being.  

    I assume that you think murder should be illegal, so I don't know what possible argument you could make to allow the murder of an unborn baby.  My little brother was born a month premature.  Are you going to argue that it should be illegal to murder a premature baby but illegal to murder an unborn one even though there are unborn babies that are more developed than the premature babies?

     

     

    well i disagree, obviously there should be some controls on late term abortions etc.  but i generally accept the timeline of brainwave activity at 25 weeks to be a reasonable cutoff
    plus it's legal now(where i live) so i guess it's seen by experts/law makers and the general public as ok so i'm going to have to go with the staus quo on this one.
     

     

     @tster said:


    @element[0] said:
    gay marriage


    Personally I swing back and forth on gay marriage.  However, I have to argue that if you support gay marriage you must also support polygamy or else you are a hypocrite.

     
     

    i do support polygamy as well no hypocracy here

     

    plus why would you not want gay marriage anyway? that doesn't make sense.

     

    @tster said:


    @element[0] said:
    teaching religion in schools


    Most conservatives don't want religion taught in schools.  Some want creation taught as an alternative to evolution, but what I find is that those are not "conservatives," but in fact they are "statists" who hold much different beliefs than conservatives.

     

    i disagree, i think most conservatives do

     

    @tster said:


    @element[0] said:
    no needle exchages


    You mean we don't want to pay for drug addicts to use clean needles?  Holy shit, we are cruel mother fuckers.  I didn't realize people out there still think needle exchanges are a good idea.

     


    so you'd rather the spread of aids and hepatitus, good for you.  this is a perfect example of non-pragmatism, ie. people will use heroin even though it is illegal so as well as trying to stop people using it
    you need to focus on harm minimization as well, to do anything else is to deny the facts, just making it illegal obviously hasn't worked or we wouldn't be discussing it right now.

     @tster said:


    @element[0] said:
    promoting celibacy over condoms


    how is this "crazy", "illogical", or "non pragmatic?"  Obviously abstinence is the safest choice when it comes to: pregnancy, STDs, and emotional development.  I'm not advocating outlawing condoms for minors or anything, but I don't think we should be giving them condoms in middle school and telling them to do whatever they want.  Children have poor judgment, and it's the parent's job to ensure their safety, both physical and emotional.   It is society's job to allow the parents to excercize their judgement and not subvert what they tell their children.

     


    again harm minimisation is the key here, people will have sex or at least the urge to have sex no matter what you tell them, take the pragmatic view and educate them instead.
    as for the emotional development argument that doesn't really make sense, sexual education isn't designed to encourage sex, it's to give you options and understanding, when you're
    emotionally ready you'll do it, whether that's 13 or fifty.
     

      @tster said:


    @element[0] said:


      The thing about more left leaning political views is that they are trying to provide a framework for people to make decisions about social issues based on personal preference rather than the right wing idea of just making a black and white rule and forcing everyone to live by it.



    My personal preference is to not be murdered, not pay for other people to use heroin, and not have my children being told that it's ok to have sex in 6th grade so long as you use a condom.   I feel that these rights should be extended to all people.  You, I guess, believe that it's OK to kill people so long as nobody values their life; take, by force, people's money and use it to inject heroin into your body; and take, by force (since education is compulsory), my children and tell them that it's OK to have sex so long as it feels right to them.



    again that would be nice, i'd like all those things too, but that's not the reality, people will use heroin, it is ok to have sex when you're ready, there will be unwanted pregnancies.
    look at the real world not your ideals.
     

     

      @tster said:


    @element[0] said:


     And there is also the nut bag libertarians, lol.  But there aren't really enough of them to make any difference(mainly because it's such a dumb idea).



    I'm sorry, your going to have to explain to me how libertarianism is "nut bag" and "dumb."  They believe in personal freedom and responsibility.  You can't simply dismiss a major political movement on a whim and assume people will not think that you are a moron and a simpleton.

    There are probably more libertarians than you might think too.  Just because Bob Barr got about 1% of the vote doesn't mean there weren't lots of libertarians that would vote for him if he had a chance to win.


     well morbius was bagging communism previously, i think it's a stupid idea, but it works on paper, same with libertarianism, it's a nice theory but completely impractical
    but people who believe in it are so evangelistic about it it makes me laugh i couldn't resist poking it.

    lol, you guys make me laugh, it's okto criticise the left and communists so if that's going to be acceptable on this forum then me expressing my views should be too



  • @element[0] said:

     well morbius was bagging communism previously, i think it's a stupid idea, but it works on paper, same with libertarianism, it's a nice theory but completely impractical
    but people who believe in it are so evangelistic about it it makes me laugh i couldn't resist poking it.

    lol, you guys make me laugh, it's okto criticise the left and communists so if that's going to be acceptable on this forum then me expressing my views should be too

     

    We have stated many times on this forum why communism is a fundamentally flawed system.  This is the first time I've seen someone on this forum say that libertarianism is "nut bag," so naturally I am curious as to what your reasoning is behind it.

    Also, why would I care about heroin addicts getting Hepatitis and HIV?  They are already throwing their life away, I don't feel like footing the bill so they can shoot up safely.



  • @tster said:

    Why would I care about heroin addicts getting Hepatitis and HIV? They are already throwing their life away, I don't feel like footing the bill so they can shoot up safely.

    so you don't see any issue with a statistically significant portion of the population having a deadly infectious disease which can easily be prevented with some simple precautions and a small amount of government funding?

    Doesn't this seem to be a little short sighted to you? I think you're missing the flow on effects to the rest of society and also my point about harm minimisation, no one is saying you should fund someones drug habit but i think trying to reduce the harm that their drug abuse has on the rest of society is a wise investment.

    You need to deal with the reality of the situation, not your definition of "how it should be"



  •  I don't have sex with interveinous drug users.  The people that I associate don't have sex with interveinous drug users. 

    This is my the question I ask for all government actions:

     Does it reward bad behavior or punish good behavior?



  • @element[0] said:

    so you don't see any issue with a statistically significant portion of the population having a deadly infectious disease which can easily be prevented with some simple precautions and a small amount of government funding?
    No, no I don't.  They're making stupid decisions.  Don't condone them.  



  •  I thought this post was about how you lost your virginity - instead I go in and find an impersonation of hannity and colmes.



  • @element[0] said:

    i do support polygamy as well no hypocracy here
    plus why would you not want gay marriage anyway? that doesn't make sense.

    You support polygamist marriages?  We're not talking about what people do with their lives, since that is nobody's business but their own.  We're talking about a goverment-granted privilige.  If you support polygamy, why not marriage to children, too?

     

    @element[0] said:

    so you'd rather the spread of aids and hepatitus, good for you.  this is a perfect example of non-pragmatism, ie. people will use heroin even though it is illegal so as well as trying to stop people using it
    you need to focus on harm minimization as well, to do anything else is to deny the facts, just making it illegal obviously hasn't worked or we wouldn't be discussing it right now.

    No, you're the one not being pragmatic.  Heroin addiction is a disease as well.  People who are shooting heroin and who don't give a shit about clean needles are engaging in reckless behavior.  By trying to shield them from the consequences of their actions, you are not only treating them like children but you are not addressing the core problem of reckless behavior.  Due to this, needle exchanges may prevent some diseases but the heroin users will just find other ways to be reckless and those ways may harm other people.  I say make heroin legal and let the druggies take care of themselves.  If heroin was legal it would be cheap enough that anyone who didn't care about their own well-being could be high all the time.  There would be none of the crime associated with the black market nor the thefts and muggings that heroin users commit to fund their expensive habit.  Heroin users would just be blissed-out on the floor 24 hours a day until they died, which means they won't be a danger to anyone but themselves.

     

    @element[0] said:

     well morbius was bagging communism previously, i think it's a stupid idea, but it works on paper

    No, it does not.  Stop spreading this fucking bullshit lie.  Communism works on paper if you ignore everything we know about humanity, psychology, society, technology, economics, etc...  It's a failure.  If it was a physics theory, it would violate gravity, inertia, conservation of energy and the second law of thermodynamics.  If you were a physicist and you stated that the theory "worked on paper", you would be laughed out of your profession.

     

    @element[0] said:

    same with libertarianism, it's a nice theory but completely impractical

    Um, what?  It's not even much of a theory, it's built mostly on pragmatic grounds, although it does have a moral foundation in not using violence against others unless absolutely justifiable.  Regardless, it's almost the polar opposite of Communism in that it accepts what we know about human societies and economics.

     

    @element[0] said:

    lol, you guys make me laugh, it's okto criticise the left and communists so if that's going to be acceptable on this forum then me expressing my views should be too

    You make me laugh because you are incredibly silly.  Nobody is trying to silence you; you're free to express your views.  It's okay to criticize damn near anything, if you want.  What you are not free from is the schooling you will receive as it is clear you are misinformed, ignorant and lack any ability to rationally examine your views or the views of others.  Being free to express your views does not mean being free from reason.  Say what you like, but don't try to fall back on "you're trying to stop me from expressing my views" when we point out how moronic you are being.



  • @tster said:

    I don't have sex with interveinous drug users.  The people that I associate don't have sex with interveinous drug users.

    Speak for yourself!  I demand the government protect me from disease when I engage in bisexual cocaine orgies with intravenous drug users.

     

    @tster said:

    This is my the question I ask for all government actions:

    Does it reward bad behavior or punish good behavior?

    That's a good question, but I think there is a better one: "Is it morally justifiable for me to use violence against my fellow citizens to accomplish this?"  All government actions are built on violence and coercion and we must never forget that.  It suddenly puts a lot of stuff in perspective; several billions in government projects seem unjustifiable when you realize they only exist because of exploitation.  It would take a real asshole to argue that building windmills and other silly "alternative energy" plans are so great that forcibly taking money from Americans at gunpoint is justified.

     

    In the same vein, here is a good P.J. O'Rourke quote:

    There is no virtue in compulsory
    government charity, and there is no virtue in advocating it. A politician who
    portrays himself as "caring" and "sensitive" because he wants to expand the
    government's charitable programs is merely saying that he's willing to try to do
    good with other people's money. Well, who isn't? And a voter who takes pride in
    supporting such programs is telling us that he'll do good with his own money-if
    a gun is held to his head.



  • @tster said:

    1.  Same-sex couples cannot reproduce naturally, hence the union is not natural.  You can think of them as evolutionarily broken.  The primary instinct of all animals is to live and reproduce.  Their instinct to reproduce is appearantly broken.

     

     

     

    should infertile people therefore be forbidden from marriage?



  • @davidrhoskin said:

     

    should infertile people therefore be forbidden from marriage?

     

    Well, many people, including myself, would consider that an absurd position.  However, according to Catholic doctrine (for example), sex is only permissible in the context of marriage, and the only purpose of sex is procreation. 

    According to Roman Catholic doctrine, shouldn't infertile people be banned from getting married?

     "The Catholic Church believes that prior AND permanent impotence is a barrier to a true Christian marriage."

    ...

    "Canon Law 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have
    intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether
    absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature."

     



  •  As a quick follow-up, I actually found a link to a documentary about a Brazilian paraplegic who was forbidden to marry by the Catholic Church, due to impotence.

    http://www.disabilityworld.org/01-03_02/arts/wedding.shtml

    This 60-minute film tells the story of a disabled man and his fiancé
    who face religious opposition to their marriage because he is sexually
    impotent. Hedir and Mara live in a small community in Brazil. He is a
    paraplegic due to a gun shot injury and works for a disability
    organization. She is a widow with two children.


    After her husband's death, Mara begins
    working for Hedir as a home care attendant and they fall in love and
    decide to get married. Since both of them, as well as their families,
    are Catholic they make plans to marry in their community church. They
    make arrangements with the priest for services, ceremony and all other
    wedding activities, invitations are sent out, and they undergo the
    requisite premarital counseling. The priest says nothing to suggest
    that Hedir's impairment will be an impediment to the marriage. Shortly
    before the wedding, he receives a letter from the Bishop stating that
    according to the Canonic law, he cannot get married in the church
    because he is impotent.

    I also found this interesting (from the same article):

    In the Jewish Ultra-Orthodox religion there is a rule that says: if you
    have not been able to have a child within 10 years then you should no
    longer continue to be married.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    What you are not free from is the schooling you will receive as it is clear you are misinformed, ignorant and lack any ability to rationally examine your views or the views of others.  Being free to express your views does not mean being free from reason.


    your views have been examined and found wanting. i put it to you that you are misinformed, ignorant and lack the ability to objectively analise an issue or be persuaded from your own narrow minded views. Take for instance your view on gun control, could you ever be convinced by someone to change your mind? or as soon as their argument seemed reasonable you would dismiss them as some kind of "leftist hippie".

    If you can listen to others and are capable of changing your mind then good for you, if not then good for you too, i don't really give a shit. I think a lot of your opinions on social issues fall into the "crack pot" category so i realise you are in a minority and quite harmless. Kind of like the crazy guy at flinders st station yelling about the end of the word, annoying yes, crazy yes but essentially harmless.

    If you need to have it explained why libertarianism would not work in reality (actually it would kind of work it would just be an incredibly crappy place to live) then i suggest you do some reading up about how it would actually work and think about the practicalities of implementing it and what it would be like to be a citizen living under such a system.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    As a quick follow-up, I actually found a link to a documentary about a Brazilian paraplegic who was forbidden to marry by the Catholic Church, due to impotence.

    http://www.disabilityworld.org/01-03_02/arts/wedding.shtml

    Awesome.  So talking about politics wasn't flamey enough.  Now we're talking about Religion too.



  • @belgariontheking said:

    Awesome.  So talking about politics wasn't flamey enough.  Now we're talking about Religion too.

    Not trying to feed the flames at all.  The question raised about sterility and marriage genuinely interested me, and I picked up the Catholic angle because I was baptized a Catholic and also because Christianity was already mentioned in this thread (in the OP, as a matter of fact).

    I had a hunch that sterility (or impotence) would be a barrier to marriage under the Catholic faith, and a quick google confirmed my suspicions.

    I thought it would be food for thought, rather than fuel for flames.



  • @CodeSimian said:

    @belgariontheking said:
    Awesome.  So talking about politics wasn't flamey enough.  Now we're talking about Religion too.
    Not trying to feed the flames at all.
    I wasn't trying to make fun of you personally.  No hard feelings, it's just that that's what I thought when I read your posts.  I did find your posts informative.

    I was, in my lame way, trying to feed the flames.  This thread is nothing but flamebait anyway.  Thanks morbs.



  • @element[0] said:

    your views have been examined and found wanting.

    By whom?  Certainly not by the guy who fails capitalization, spelling and punctuation.

     

    @element[0] said:

    i put it to you that you are misinformed, ignorant and lack the ability to objectively analise an issue or be persuaded from your own narrow minded views.

    I continuously analyze my views and my opinions have changed over time.  When I was a young teenager I was an avid Communist and I happily devoured all of the Leftist writings.  By the time I was 16 or so I realize how fundamentally flawed Communism is and how it leads to exploitation, tyranny, oppression and misery on a massive scale.

     

    @element[0] said:

    Take for instance your view on gun control, could you ever be convinced by someone to change your mind? or as soon as their argument seemed reasonable you would dismiss them as some kind of "leftist hippie".

    I have never heard a reasonable argument in favor of extreme gun control.  All facts point to the conclusion that outlawing guns will not reduce crime and will most likely result in an increase in burlary, home invasion, rape, assault and muggings.  If someone wants to offer a new argument in favor of gun control, I will listen, but I'm not interested in treading the same ground again and again.

     

    @element[0] said:

    If you can listen to others and are capable of changing your mind then good for you, if not then good for you too, i don't really give a shit. I think a lot of your opinions on social issues fall into the "crack pot" category so i realise you are in a minority and quite harmless. Kind of like the crazy guy at flinders st station yelling about the end of the word, annoying yes, crazy yes but essentially harmless.

    I think most of your opinions are crazy and quite harmful.  So far you have already implicitly advocated taking away the right for a person to defend themselves against criminals, and that's just in this single comment.  God knows how else you intend to hurt people.

     

    @element[0] said:

    If you need to have it explained why libertarianism would not work in reality (actually it would kind of work it would just be an incredibly crappy place to live) then i suggest you do some reading up about how it would actually work and think about the practicalities of implementing it and what it would be like to be a citizen living under such a system.

    So basically you have squat, as I figured.  Instead of provide a reason, you've just babbled on and made yourself look like a jackass.  I'd already chalked you up as hopelessly stupid and you've failed to successfully challenge that opinion.  I must be crazy, right?  Ha.

     

    Also, I don't think you have the first idea what libertarianism is about.  The main difference between the US now and a libertarian US would be fewer restrictions on what people do in the privacy of their own homes, such as drug use.  Relaxed gun control would obviously play a part, but there are quite a few places in the US that already have pretty lax gun control laws.  Take Vermont, for example, which doesn't even require a permit to buy a gun or carry concealed.  Essentially, Vermont has no gun control laws at the state level and it also has a very low murder rate.  Man, what a hellhole Vermont is, right?  We would see a decrease in useless government spending, like the hundreds of billions we pay farmers not to grow food and welfare recipients not to work.  Also, the dismantling of Social Security and Medicare which are unsustainable boondoggles that will end up strangling us if left alone.  A true libertarian state would also see a decrease in defense spending and an isolationist foreign policy, but I am not sold on that aspect.  Finally, we would see the elimination of complex tax codes and business regulations that benefit the corrupt and politically-connected and harm the honest businessperson.  Man, that all sounds just awful!!



  • @belgariontheking said:

    I was, in my lame way, trying to feed the flames.  This thread is nothing but flamebait anyway.  Thanks morbs.

    So your dumb ass can't keep from fanning the flames and this is somehow my fault?  First, this isn't even my fucking thread, DOA started it.  Second, this is in General Discussion, which is meant for threads like this.  And if you are referring to my thread, I made it clear in the title that it would be a political thread that was critical of Zero.  Nobody had to read it.  This is quite different than someone making an out-of-line political comment in the middle of a Sidebar thread.  Thank you, btk.  You have once again confirmed that people who voted for Zero are complete morons.  I honestly have yet to talk to anyone who voted for the bastard that is intelligent and well-informed on the issues.  I'm sure they exist, but so far the gaggle of idiots I've dealt with are mostly narrow-minded fools who can only regurgitate the empty rhetoric of the Obama campaign.  The same is true for a lot of McCain supporters, of course.  Then again, I'm not a McCain supporter so I guess I can take refuge in the knowledge that I'm not fooled by either side.  However, we're all on the same ship and we are rapidly taking on water and will soon disappear beneath the cold, inky waves.  It kind of sucks being one of the few people who notices we are capsizing even as most people argue over how the furniture should be arranged on the deck.



  • yo morbs, I'm not the one foaming at the mouth over the liberals, or anything really.  Chill out.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.