@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