A place for careful, clear, respectful discussions of difficult topics. No flame wars, please. This isn’t the rest of the Internet (as you may have noticed).
Continued from v. 2011.1.
Patience, Please
This site is under reconstruction and will look strange for a while. We regret the inconvenience.
First Post!
As some of you may know, I just came back from an MUN conference, which always gets me thinking about these kinds of things, especially the issues debated.
What do you all think the best way to handle the Somalian piracy situation is?
Do you think a ban on nuclear weapons enforced by a trade sanction on those who refuse to comply will work?
(for those who don’t know, a trade sanction is where other countries refuse to trade with the country the sanction is imposed on)
Maybe this isn’t exactly a “hot topic”, but it’s something I was thinking about last night…
Is it offensive to say “What do you think I am, deaf/blind?” when someone points out something very obvious to you?
Ooh, that’s hard. Vertically challenged, anyone? Is it offensive or ridiculous?
It depends on whether said group (blind/deaf/vertically challenged) would get offended, and of course being blind/deaf/vertically challenged does not make you necessarily a certain position on the topic- I imagine some people would be fine with it while others would be more sensitive. So that is a really, really, really hard question, Kai. You’ve stumped me.
I’m short, and I call myself “vertically challenged” sometimes. However, as I would guess is typical for this kind of language, it’s a more annoying “joke” when somebody else says it. (My German exchange student friend calls me a hobbit or “Starbucks tall”. :lol:)
As another example to add to the dicussion, there’s a site that I often visit that has a very strong community policy against “ableist” language. This includes language like “That plot twist was crazy!” or “Wow, that’s really lame.”
And, of course, as long as we’re talking about political correctness, there’s the euphemism treadmill associated with idiot, imbecile, moron, and, most recently, mentally retarded.
Are all of these terms pejorative enough against particular groups that they shouldn’t be used in conversation?
I generally avoid it just in case, but I don’t know whether I’d require it of others.
We call one kid in our scout troop “Fun size” when we’re referencing his height
I’ve seen that on t-shirts. “I’m not short, I’m fun size.” The annoying bit is when tall people wear them.
I wonder about political correctness. Should things be taken so literally, since the use of words change over time? (and how much of our vocabulary would be gone if all ableist/possibly politically incorrect words were taken out?)
I think that that site is taking things a bit too far, especially since the words “crazy” or “lame” don’t get used to refer to people who are insane or can’t walk well much anymore.
As for the euphemism treadmill, I think that idiot, imbecile and moron are okay, because they haven’t been used as terms for the lower IQ categories in several decades. “Mentally retarded” is technically a valid description of someone with an IQ lower than 70, but I’m guessing it shouldn’t be used except when describing a psychological condition.
In most places nowadays that I know of, “mentally retarded” is avoided by professionals who work with the developmentally disabled. In this case the preferred nomenclature is not merely a euphemism, but a more useful and more encompassing term.
I really don’t like it when people throw around the phrase “retarted” or “retard”. It’s offensive. Maybe one day the term will be like “stupid” and “moron”, where nobody uses it to describe people with legitimate mental disabilites, but I still think it’s very offensive.
In a lot of ways, being a white, cisgender, American, well-off person, I am the majority. So in terms of, well, terms that might be considered insulting, I don’t feel that I have the right to decide what terms are and are not okay to use.
I really, really hate when people who aren’t part of a group that I belong to try to tell me what terms I can and can’t be offended by. For instance, I find the term “slut” offensive to women and I would prefer not to hear it, but when I tell this to boys in my class who use it, they tell me that I am “taking it too seriously” and I need to “lighten up”. I don’t feel that they have the right to tell me that it’s my fault that I’m offended by terms they use.
I do, however, totally understand that some people really aren’t offended by some of these terms. Some people even want to reclaim them. I am totally okay with that! What terms people are and are not offended by is totally up to them.
But if I’m not part of the group that I’m describing by using these terms, even terms like “crazy” or “lame”, I don’t know who I might be offending by using them, and so I like to stay on the safe side. After all, if I were in the position of someone in the group I’m describing, I feel like I would appreciate the thought.
This is an interesting thing to think about. Hmmm, individual sensitivity.
I haven’t been called ‘vertically challenged,’ but my friends often call me a ‘midget’ affectionately (leaving me to a combination of amusement and annoyance or just pure exasperation, depending on how they say it and in what context.) Some other people become angry when it is implied that they are ‘short,’ to the extent that their friends warn others against mentioning anything to do with height when around them.
I think this all has something to do with stereotypes. (‘Short people tend to be mean.’ -My friend. (‘oh, except you of course, [Cskia].’)) So people try not to offend others, but the things other people get offended by seem to be the sort of things that are stereotypically negative. So which part would the offended party be offended at: the use of their label in a derogatory way, or a reminder that their label is ‘bad/not desirable/etc.?
Am I even making sense? I don’t feel very sensible right now. >.<
In a comment on my [violin] jury sheet last year, one of the professors wrote, “As a non-tall person, you might find it easier if you [technical advice].”
Really, I’m not offended by the word “short”.
I really think that whether the term is offensive really depends on the stereotypes. I don’t think that you should go make fun of people for any of this stuff or perpetrate stereotypes, but it always annoys me when you’re trying to describe someone, for example, and you call them short and someone calls you on it for being mean. It’s just a physical characteristic, so as long as you’re not using it in an insulting way, I think it’s fine. I often think that people get a little too touchy about this stuff.
A related thing: I never know what to call people with dwarfism. Because the word “dwarf” is no longer PC, and I cannot bring myself to call them “little people.” This is mostly because “little people” is also the name of a type of children’s toys, and it doesn’t seem right to call a person (or group of people) by the name of a toy.
I read that second sentence in D&D terms as as “Dwarf is no longer a P(ayer) C(haracter)” I was about to start a huge rant about 4th edition ruining Dungeons and Dragons, and then I realized what you were actually talking about. *Facepalm*
4th did ruin D&D! *pays popo fine*
Thank you!
I agree. The term “little people” always seems to make me think of leprechauns, so it seems rude to me to call people leprechauns, but then again “midget” also seems demeaning and trite. I’ll just stick to “people with dwarfism.”
I was hoping for a single-word descriptor, but I think I’m going to have to agree with you that “people with dwarfism†is the best option for now. Hopefully the next word to be churned out by the euphemism treadmill won’t come with negative connotations…
I live in Massachusetts, and I generally pride my state on being really good about the equal rights things, but Ir read a news story the other day that made me begin to question that. There’s currently this bill, that just passed the house of representatives in Massachusetts that will extend all of the equal opportunity laws to transgendered people. Basically, with the current situation you can be fired from your job if you choose to change gender, or can be discriminated against in many other ways. This bill will outlaw all discrimination based on sexual identity, except that while it was in the house a number of people refused to vote on the bill unless the part that said that you could not be denied access to a business (such as a restaurant or a museum) because of your sexual identity. A lot of the arguments that were used to remove this from the bill were similar to the arguments used against desegregation and the womens rights movements, one of the most disturbing being “What if I had to share a bathroom with a transgendered person?” It just makes me sick that even today people would have a problem with sharing a restaurant with people just because they identified as a different gender, and that people would fight so hard against someone else’s rights.
Opinions?
I can understand why someone would not be comfortable sharing a bathroom with someone who they perceive as the opposite gender, since bathrooms are supposed to be single-gender. One solution to this would be to get rid of gender-separated bathrooms and instead have a row of individual small rooms that have full doors with locks, and then a row of sinks outside of these doors. So then there’s no bathroom to share in the first place. But I highly doubt that this would happen, so I think we’re stuck waiting for attitudes to change.
Bathrooms are gender-separated? I always assumed they were sex-separated, in which case transgendered people would go to the bathroom with people of the same sex but opposite gender. That makes more sense to me, since presumably the reason for the separation is biology-related…
And if the toilets are all enclosed, how would you even know if someone’s gender matched their sex or not?
Well, there are usually multiple toilets in the bathroom, and you see other people. I mean, sure, you can’t definitively check their sex, but you can generally tell by looking at a person whether they’re biologically male or female.
Also, I’ve heard that for some reason, not all toilets are enclosed in male bathrooms. I’ve never been to one, though.
In male bathrooms, you can see people’s backs when they’re using the urinals. I don’t really know why this is.
…I don’t even know what a urinal is. I won’t ask. Anyway, that’s why I thought sex separation would be more practical than gender separation. Your other post is making me rethink that, though; it’s insightful. Thanks.
Because there’s no point in having an enclosed stall around a urinal? It would be a lot more expensive to make, and it would just waste time.
This is a genuine question: What is the point of urinals? Is it just to save time so you don’t have to take all that time locking and unlocking the stall door?
It’s easier, it’s faster, it doesn’t use as much water, it takes up less space.
Well, they’re technically sex-separated, but it’s fairly unpleasant to use a bathroom that’s not the gender you present as. If a transgender person uses the bathroom of their sex, people look at them oddly or tell them they’re in the wrong bathroom (this happened to me all the time when I used women’s bathrooms because I basically presented as male for years before I came out as trans), and using the bathroom of their gender can be scary.
I don’t know. I think that if someone is transgendered then they are identifying with their gender, and that is the bathroom they should feel comfortable using.
Also, I get the wrong bathroom thing a lot to. Honestly, I often use the male bathroom for single stall ones (with no other people). I don’t really see anything wrong with this, because it isn’t any different from the other sex’s bathroom. I can see in bathrooms with multiple stalls or urinals, but I don’t see the problem with all single stall bathrooms being unisex. Why do they even have gender separation for one person bathrooms anyway?
I also use men’s bathrooms when they’re single-stall — people rarely call me out on it (yayz androgyny) and most of the time the bathroom is exactly the same thing. There literally is no point to having single-stall bathrooms designated ‘male’ or ‘female’.
But I can most definitely see Nym’s point. It could be very unpleasant, and possibly even dangerous, for a trans person to have to use a bathroom for the same sex but opposite gender. Not to mention that you would probably still get called out on using the wrong bathroom. (People can tell when someone is trans and out, even if it’s still semi-evident that they’re trans. That’s kinda the whole point, isn’t it?)
I get that it’s uncomfortable to use the other bathroom, but it’s also uncomfortable to be transgendered in such a prejudiced society, and as far as comfort goes, it’s more a problem with prejudice. There’s going to be plenty of unpleasantness for trans people wherever they go until our society changes to accept people more. The idea behind the bill is that no one would have a legal reason to tell someone that they were in the wrong bathroom, and that the rights of transgendered people would at least be protected legally, even though people may still be prejudiced.
Sorry, I know that this sounds really blunt, but I’m not saying that we should ignore the prejudice as a problem that will exist one way or another. I’m just saying that our society needs to change and that laws reinforcing people’s rights are a good step to encouraging people to be more accepting.
Most definitely. I am not disagreeing. ^_^
I think the laws are going to get passed soon, though. These kind of things end up gaining critical momentum, and just because the laws didn’t pass this time doesn’t mean they won’t pass next time.
I hate that people are so prejudiced. I have trouble understanding why people would be so uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with a transgender person. It doesn’t seem like it should be that big a deal to me. Must we make such a fuss about using the toilet?
I don’t know why people wouldb e so concerned about who’s near them when they’re using the toilet. I, and most people I know (this came up over lunch the other day), don’t care who’s outside so long as they’re in a stall. My solution: big huge restrooms and stalls for everyone.
On a semi-related note: What do people feel about sports teams? Which team should transgendered people play on in sports with girls and boys teams?
I think they should probably be able to choose. I can see why someone might say they should be on their sex’s team because of physical differences–different sexes are, in general, better at different types of sports, although there are plenty of exceptions! Then again, that might be uncomfortable, and maybe they’d have trouble relating to their teammates. Since there are so many different factors, I just think they ought to be able to choose. Then again, you could say that isn’t exactly fair because other people don’t get to choose… Aargh. Oh, well, that’s not a good enough argument to change my mind, so I’ll just ignore it.
The same team as their gender; to be honest, though, I’ve never really understood why sports are gender separated. It seems as though there is a subtle form of sexism involved.
But that is a different topic…
I feel like the argument for same-sex teams would be that the physical limitations of each sex are different. Maybe not? But those limitations vary enough from person to person that I don’t think it would matter very much. If someone is preventing a transgender person from being on the same sports team as their gender, it is prejudice and is just going to lead to other forms of oppression. I imagine that there might be problems among the other members of the team.
Please understand when I say this that I’m a fervent feminist and a very competitive athlete. I’ve even held that same opinion in the past. But really, I’ve been forced to acknowledge that in general there is a difference in athletics between males and females, even at the highest levels.
Personally, I’ve played with some extremely good soccer players over the past few years through the soccer “academy” that I train with. Some of them are female, and they’re some of the best female soccer players in the area, so it’s not like women can’t be good. But we’re still not any better than even the average males at the academy. The differences can’t be chalked up to a discrepancy in desire or hard work, either. I remember reading someplace that even the US women’s national soccer team, arguably the best in the world, often loses when matched against mens’ U-18 or college teams.
None of this really offers an answer to the problem at hand, unfortunately. I just want to mention that the solution may not be as simple as it seems at first glance.
It does sometimes seem sexist, but sports were originally separated to make it fairer. I agree with everything that Meow said, and I think that, while people should have the option to compete in mixed teams if they want to, there should also be the option of separated teams.
I don’t actually know the answer to this myself, because it does seem like discrimination to say that transgenderd people should have to play on their sex’s team, but at the same time, if a male who became a female wants to play on the women’s team, they have been taking many years of a steroid, testosterone, so I don’t know…
Wait, why are you assuming that transgendered M to F people take steroids? Am I missing something here?
No, no, not at all. En means that testosterone is technically a steroid, and since MtFs have testosterone in their bodies (unless they’re taking estrogen), it could be against the rules for them to play on women’s teams.
Yeah, sorry about that. It was stupidly worded. What I basically meant to say was that testosterone would usually be considered an unfair advantage on a womens team.
Ah, thank you for explaining that. *oblivious non-sports person present* My basis for this observation was that (at my school at least) girls teams tend to get taken less seriously than boys teams. So I guess it wasn’t a great conclusion to draw. Sorry.
Oh, I’d agree with you that girls teams are taken much less seriously. I know personally from fencing that even in the younger age categories the boys teams often get the prime time slots, whereas the girls have to get there at 4:30 in the morning. I was just pointing out that the original reason for separation was to increase fairness, but I think that girls teams should definitely get more attention.
Another topic related to bills in Massachusetts:
Casino gambling. Casinos were illegal in Massachusetts until recently, but a bill was passed a few weeks ago legalizing 3 casinos. The problem was that there are several native American reservations in Massachusetts, and they wanted to open casinos. Since they aren’t really part of the country, they don’t have the same laws about casinos, so it could be legal for them to open one. In some ways, the bill is helping to spread out the casinos and regulate them, because it includes licenses for two native american casinos, but it is also legalizing gambling.
What are people’s thoughts on this?
Personally, I think that gambling should be illegal because it’s basically a direct redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich casino owners. For casino owners to make money the expected value of any game has to be less than you pay, so no one ever wins except for the casino owner. A casino is making money off of harming others. Because of gambling addictions, families are starving and not having enough money to pay for basic necessities because they waste so much of it gambling. I think that we should not be legalizing anything this destructive and unfair.
Self control, self control, self control. Casinos are for those with either too much money or too little, and both can end up addicted and broke.
I see what you’re saying, though. Mohegan Sun here in CT sucks in so much cash from compulsive gambler s every day. It’s insane.
Ok, maybe poor was a bad phrasing. To clarify, I meant funneling everyone’s money to a few insanely rich casino owners. I was just pointing out that the less money you start with, the quicker you go broke.
I (also an MA resident) am against gambling and the new casinos, but I do think that it depends on your view of whether gambling addiction is/should be a psychological/medical condition. If you think it is purely an issue of self-restraint (a stance I do not agree with personally), then that may be a valid viewpoint to argue in favor of casinos. In addition, it’s not like the government is in much of a habit of stopping companies from making huge amounts of money off of people’s addictions: look at the thriving alcohol and tobacco industries that the government has allowed to profit off of addiction for years and years…
Does anyone know what’s up with the new National Defense Authorization Act for 2012? I’ve heard conflicting information about an “indefinite detention clause” that would apparently allow the executive branch power to put any U.S. citizen suspected of being a terrorist in indefinite detention. That seems a) pretty out-there, b) pretty scary, and c) pretty definitely in violation of habeas corpus, so does anyone know what’s going on?
Don’t they already have that right regarding non-U.S. citizens? As far as I’m concerned, this is nothing new. Ask people who regularly travel as non-U.S. citizens, especially if they have an accent or look vaguely Middle-Eastern. I think I’m actually in favor of this bill, because it makes them discriminate equally (yes, I have bad blood with airport security).
I think it’s terrible that they’re already doing it to non-citizens, but in my opinion, it’s better to deny rights from one group of people than all people. Yes, that mean’s the person denying rights is not only cruel but also unjust and prejudiced, but the overall effect on the world is better if at least some people have those rights. If this passes, more individual, innocent people are going to be indefinitely imprisoned for suspected terrorism… and that’s the main effect. Is that really less important to you than equality? Because the same argument could be used to say, for example, that bombing all countries except your favorite is worse than bombing all countries and killing millions more people, even in a world in which everyone else is perfect and wouldn’t blame the entire country who didn’t get bombed. Obviously, doing either would be evil and awful and unthinkable, and I know you know that, but to me, the first one seems obviously better. I’m curious: Would you agree with that?
Also, this isn’t an argument, I’ve heard that President Obama has promised to veto the bill, which means it isn’t likely to pass.
Well, I know the bill has already passed 93-7 in the Senate, which makes it seem pretty likely that even if President Obama vetoes it it’ll get passed by Congress.
But is it really true that this clause will allow this to occur? It seemed so crazy to me that I needed a second confirmation.
…93-7?!
My brother says he saw it in Wired magazine. We don’t subscribe, which means the article’s probably online somewhere. Anyway, I heard about it before reading your post, if that counts.
Is it really? I know you’re saying “it’s terrible (…), but”. The whole practice is wrong. I’m not talking about arresting people and holding them for a few days and interrogating them. I’m talking about deciding someone looks suspicious and having the right to send them to Guantanamo Bay based on that suspicion. Most of my friends and family are non-US citizens. My dad is a non-US citizen and most definitely not a terrorist, but was threatened by airport security at JFK anyway and the idea that they could simply declare his- or anyone else’s- behavior suspicious and “detain him indefinitely” on a whim doesn’t sit well with me. You could argue that as long as one doesn’t do anything wrong one has nothing to fear but please, we know that’s not necessarily true. For one thing, define “suspicious behavior”.
The difference is that most non-US citizens can’t fight back and I doubt most countries would risk their diplomatic relationships with the US over one citizen who may or may not be a terrorist. But US citizens would stand better chances and would be turned against the system. Don’t get me wrong, I think airport security is a good idea, but I value human right even more. As long as one group is spared by a brutal system, they are inclined to support it because it supports them. If all are equally discriminated against, there are better chances that some sort of protest will be started. You’re a US-citizen, right? And probably the majority of the people in your area. You know that the government you uphold commits these violent crimes and yet you don’t fight for a change in policy because they’re not threatening anyone you care about and this blatant disregard allegedly keeps you safer. What’s so dangerous about giving someone a fair trial? I don’t believe that this will help catch terrorists. I don’t think the bill is good either, I just think that it would at least provoke some change in policy.
And yes, to return to your example of the bombing (of course, in a perfect world, no-one would be bombing anyone else): your favorite country knows they’ll be unscathed, so they won’t do anything. But the more countries are threatened, the more likely it is that they will be able to put up some form of defense. Or, let’s say, for example, Hitler and the Nazis. If they’d really tried to execute everyone who wasn’t literally fair-haired and blue-eyed they’d never have succeeded because they would have alienated to much of the population, which is what I’m getting at.
I don’t see it standing up in court, but nonetheless I hope it doesn’t get passed.
In your opinion, is Don’t Ask Don’t Tell a good thing or a bad thing?
As far as equality goes, don’t ask don’t tell is discrimination and is really no different from having it be illegal for gay people to be in the army if you can’t tell people about it, and making it ok to discriminate against people based on who they love is bad, but at the same time anything that makes the army smaller and less popular and less efficient at killing people is doing some amount of good at least. In general though, my biggest problem with it is the precedent it sends for discrimination being ok, so I am far from in favor of it. Personally, I can’t see why someone would actually want to be in the army, but if someone really does want to be in the army they should be allowed to.
Compared to what?
Love in the military is a nasty thing. Your partner can get blown up, shot and die in lots of horrible ways. If there wasn’t any [love], the military would be ideal (from a military standpoint). It would be more efficient -marginally, yes, but still. So it makes sense, in a way, to eliminate factors of sexuality and romance if you’re a military officer trying to lead a group of soldiers.
Getting repealed was still the best thing DADT ever did.
I don’t know. Alexander the Great and some of those ancient Greek people thought that love made the army more efficient because people would not just be fighting for themselves, but also to impress or protect their partner. Also, not allowing everyone to be in the army makes the people in favor of equal rights dislike the army, which makes them less likely to join as well, so that makes the army less efficient by making it smaller.
It’s very bad. I don’t see why someone would want to be in the army, either (although I’m glad someone does because otherwise, drafting would be even more common than it currently is), but if someone does, and they also want to be open about their sexuality, that should definitely be allowed. I really don’t see how someone could say otherwise.
I honestly never got the point. If people can be openly gay in their normal lives, the army shouldn’t be any different. It’s their choice if they want to take whatever consequences it might entail.
It certainly is a step above not allowing homosexuals to serve in the military, but I would certainly prefer the choice of openness without repercussions.
Well, DADA was repealed a while back.
No Defense against the Dark Arts any more? Sweet!
So, it can’t be exhibited in museums anymore or what?
(Ha ha art joke…)
On various somewhat less civilized places of the internet, I’ve seen from time to time people talking about a subject which offends me but apparently not most other people, and I’d like to discuss it. Specifically, people request and/or receive free sacred books (usually Bibles or Books of Mormon, though I’ve seen Korans and Torahs as well), and proceed to use the pages of those books as rolling papers for cigarettes and the like. I personally find this shockingly appalling. Even if I disagree with what a given text teaches, to intentionally tear it apart and burn it out of spite seems extremely offensive to me. I’ve tried bringing this up, but I always get immediately shot down as either someone who hates smokers or someone with absolutely no sense of humor, both of which are untrue.
I don’t know, am I overreacting? Or is this something that actually is more widely offensive? I can barely believe that people do it in our supposedly tolerant and modern-minded society. It seems really barbaric and hateful to me.
I personally don’t think you’re overreacting at all. Like you, I have nothing against smokers and like to think that I have a considerable sense of humor, but I can’t imagine how anyone wouldn’t find this disrespectful/offensive.
This is why I prefer MuseBlog.
You’re not overreacting; I think that’s repulsive.
Using something that has meaning to someone else that way? No, you are not overreacting. I have no faith in any holy text or religion at the moment, but if I saw someone burning a Bible or a Koran or using it to smoke I would certainly raise my eyebrows. Despite the fact that it holds no meaning to me, it holds meaning to a massive amount of people and should not be violated.
Would you feel that way about any book or just religious texts?
I, for one, would consider it offensive if any book was used that way.
Of course, I consider all smoking offensive.
And all destruction of books offensive.
But it’s easier to protest against if it’s a book that many people care about.
Please define offensive.
“Repugnant to the moral sense, good taste, or the like; insulting” is what Dictionary.com suggests.
Et voilÃ
No, I agree, that is incredibly offensive.
I agree with you. It’s abhorrent and sick. If you don’t agree with someone/a religion’s beliefs, that’s fine, but to go out of your way to offend those believers in such a shocking and barbaric manner is just disgusting.
You are absolutely not overreacting. That’s extremely offensive–worse, almost, than holding a book burning: it’s communicating not only a hatred but a contempt for those those religions. That’s disgusting.
woooo are you ready it looks like it’s time for vendy to play devil’s advocate.
there are a lot of issues being conflated, and a lot of really charged language is being used.
Let’s first state the issue are clearly as possible:
People receive free religious books. They use the paper to roll things to smoke.
This is offensive because it (destroying texts) disrespects to belief system.
They should not do this because it offends religious people.
★ Pragmatically, most of these people didn’t get the book to “tear it apart and burn it out of spite”, or even to show “not only a hatred but a contempt for those those religions.” They got it because it was a free source of rolling papers. Irreverential, yes, but not malicious.
Here’s how I’ve tried to understand it:
A. The books are holy* because they contain the word of god. But if the books are so special, why are they being given away for free? Lots are going to end up in landfills. This seems to indicate that the idea in the books are what is special, not the books themselves.
B. If the ideas are what is special, and the ideas are being given away for free, then what does it matter if they are burned? The ideas must be powerful enough to withstand the disrespect of being burned. This seems to indicate that it isn’t about the ideas, but about the people.
C. People become offended when symbols of things they hold dear are desecrated. This is because they see themselves represented by the symbols. Let’s say I burn a bible to protest the Roman Catholic Church. Would it be legal? Yes. Would it be effective? No. Much better to make a sign saying “Fire the Pope!” One method will be interpreted as personal attack upon anyone who has found solace in the bible. The other will hopefully be interpreted as rage against the pope’s actions.
This will be offensive to some people, but their taking offense at my opinions and non-harmful actions is just too bad. I have the right to my own ideas, and the right to freely express them. I think that Yahweh and Allah are monstrous fictional sociopaths, and he world would be better off without their religions.
If I were hanging out with a Christian friend who took their religion very seriously, I would not rip pages out of their favorite book in front of them. This is because people deserve respect. People lose my respect when they do bad things. I do not see any problem with using a religious book for rolling papers†. When I do it by myself the only thing I’m disrespecting is the religion, and ideas need to earn my respect. I do hold many religions in contempt, they cannot defend themselves philosophically or ethically, and are disgusting in how they treat people.
This seems closely related to the 12 Danish political cartoons of Mohammed. No idea is above ridicule.
*I’m not sure what word is right to use there, I want to say “imbued with a divine spirit”, as is possible in a dualistic philosophy.
†Medically speaking, this is another issue. You don’t want to inhale toner, it might be carcinogenic.
Well, I see what you’re talking about, but my biggest issue here is that they have no idea that what they’re doing might be offensive to somebody. If you’re so desperate to get something to smoke, why not use random bits of paper or something? It’s not like the Koran is higher quality or something.
The people I’ve seen are choosing religious tomes specifically, intentionally, and maliciously, not out of ignorance or out of any desperate need for rolling papers.
Vendy, your arguments about the texts being given away free of charge seem like straw men to me. I don’t think the situation would be different if the books were being paid for; the price of something does not determine its value. Someone is paying for the books either way.
Ah, whenever I’ve seen it done it was purely out of convenience.
They would be straw men if I were formally arguing. I was attempting to figure out what everybody else is thinking, because there’s been very little discussion about if and why said use of books is immoral. Perhaps I should have been more clear. I’d love to hear people’s reasonings, rather than just pejoratives.
Price does not determine value, value often determines price. Books are sometimes handwritten, beautifully illustrated, and lusciously crafted to reflect how their creators value the stories and ideas contained. Religions often do this with their holy texts to show respect. If you’re offended when people disrespect a holy book, it makes me wonder how respectful it is to print a book cheaply and then scatter it to the wind.
The Bible and Qur’an and Torah are only more important than Mother Goose and Brothers Grimm because they’re older and more widespread, they’ve influenced cultures and histories in profound ways. They do not contain superior truths, and have too often been deleterious to societies by claiming that they are holy. “Holy” is a concept that arises from dualistic philosophy, in which there are two parts to existence: the material world of objects, and the spiritual world, of unseen forces like souls. I don’t think that there is anything but the material world, but it seems like humans think in a spiritual way, it’s easier for us to understand and communicate in symbols and mythology. Vastly complex systems like consciousness can be reduced to ideas like “soul”, and feelings can be ascribed to a “heart.” We are deeply invested in symbols, they help us to simplify and understand a confusing, terrifying
worldexistence. So I understand why belief systems like Christianity are so comforting. They provide symbols to guide you through all stages of life, and rituals to relax in. holy books like the Bible are themselves symbols of these massive symbolic thinking systems, and therefore treated with the utmost respect. When I respect a person I do not want to hurt them physically or emotionally, and letting them have things they hold dear, like religion, is often a part of that. But just because an idea or symbol is loved and worshiped does not mean it is above criticism. Others should be able to express their indifference or even contempt for the ideas and symbols, hopefully in a way that separates the ideas and symbols from the people who follow them. If I want to burn a bible in protest it will offend people. This is true. But people are offended at all sorts of things all the time. Should gay couples not hold hands while walking in the park because it offends an onlooker? Of course not! The offended party has the right to be offended, but no more. With their long history of atrocities, and indeed continuing actions, I feel justified burning a Bible. If you have done nothing wrong and are offended, I am sorry, but being offended is hardly an injustice compared to the ongoing horrors committed with the aid of “holy” books.Well worded. I strongly agree with everything you’ve said here. Nothing should be above criticism.
I entirely agree–nothing is above criticism. Should burning Bibles/Korans/flags/whatever be made illegal? Absolutely not. Just in the same way that neo-Nazis should legally be allowed to hold demonstrations. But socially speaking, I believe that these sorts of things should not be done–I think the Westboro Baptist Church should not protest as they do, I think white supremacists should not publicly display their hatred, I think religious texts should not be maliciously burnt. As you said earlier, it’s not even effective. Even if the intention is to protest some set of beliefs or the actions of some individuals, the only real effect it has is to divide people and increase conflict. It’s not a matter of some fundamental force of justice, as you seem to be pushing; it’s a matter of social behavior. We could argue till the Sun implodes about whether Christianity is true or false, or about who’s suffered more injustice. We wouldn’t get anywhere. But sociologically speaking, I would hope that you agree that this type of protest is ineffective, generally offensive, and, by our current society’s basic value system, should be frowned upon. Personally, I don’t know of any action that both encourages hatred of someone and is justified.
Yes, bible burning is not a constructive form of protest.
Holy book rolling papers however, are far from abhorrent.
Disrespectful, yes. Maybe those writings don’t deserve respect.
I don’t know what “fundamental force of justice” you think I’m “pushing”.
And as for an “action that both encourages hatred of someone and is justified”, what about sit-ins for Civil Rights? The Salt March, Stonewall, Everybody Draw Mohammed Day? As John Adams probably didn’t say, “This is a revolution, dammit! We’re going to have to offend somebody!”
((I SEE YOU!!! I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!!!))
((ME? WHAT DID I DO, MISS ADORABLE?))
((ADAMS RAGE FIST!!!! PUNCHES THROUGH THE INTERNET))
((AXA USED ADAMS RAGE FIST! IT’S NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.))
They know that their actions would offend some people, but they’re doing no actual harm. If they do it in private they don’t even offend anyone.
The paper that mass-produced religious texts are printed on is thin (mostly chemical pulp with some fibers, I bet); perfect for rolling and burning. It’s also plentiful, neatly bound, and free.
“Might” be carcinogenic? Wouldn’t smoking anything be carciogenic?
I used “might” because the last report I read on toner could not claim anything conclusively. It’s extremely hard to conclusively prove things like this, but I should have said “probably.”
I was being a bit sardonic, as smoking most anything produces carcinogens. Something as simple as going outside is going to expose you to carcinogens as well- the Sun, for example. It’s logical to want to reduce your exposure to carcinogens, and not all smokes are equally carcinogenic. If one is smoking regularly, it would be better for one’s health to use rolling papers rather than generic printed paper.
You’re not overreacting. The rest of the Internet are being cakeheads.
I think it’s wrong to burn any book, whether it has meaning to someone else or not. I don’t agree with all of the arguments used by either side here. I actually agree with more of the arguments of people who don’t oppose it than those of those who do, here. Mostly, I agree with Enc.
Legalized prostitution: yes or no?
I don’t know enough to have an opinion, and I want one, but I’m afraid to research it because, well, who knows what might come up on the Internet, so thanks for giving me a safe place to hear both sides of the argument. Of course, it’s possible I still won’t know how I feel, like with abortion, but we’ll see.
I don’t think banning prostitution is really likely to work. I mean, it’s technically illegal in Las Vegas, and that doesn’t appear to be working particularly well.
I think that when deciding issues of criminalization and legalization*, it’s best to weight the harm caused by the activity by itself, and then that harm against the harm caused by its penalties. As President Carter said; “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed.” If legalization can actually reduce harm done by the drug as well, then I’m in favor of that.
If we write out a continuum of chemicals from sugar to crack cocaine, each chemical is dangerous in its own right (from diabetes to death), and there would be dangers associated with criminalization of each chemical. Alcohol is by far the most dangerous drug used today if we measure danger by how much damage it causes. This has to do in part with it being legal, but Prohibition wasn’t good for America either. A first test could be “Does moderate use kill you?” Cocaine does, sugar doesn’t. Next, “Does criminalization cause more problems than legalization?” I think that prostitution falls on the legalize/regulate/tax side of the spectrum rather than the criminalize side, especially with human rights abuses that can easily follow the selling of a human (service) as a commodity. I’d love to hear the other side of the argument though!
*I think there’s a difference between criminalization and illegalization, as well as between legalization and decriminalization, but I’ve used them interchangeably here because I’m tired and the conversation isn’t to a point that specific yet.
I think the prostitution business would serve very well from some regulation. Currently, such a huge part of it is about exploiting the prostitutes. They have no legal rights as workers, no job security, and often their pimp takes a large part of the money. Additionally, because of the high stigma around prostitution, they are unlikely to get any respect from any other laborers. If the business were to be regulated, it would be possible to give them more rights and possibly more respect.
My feelings about prostitution are very strongly tied up with my feelings about “slut-shaming” and rape culture, since they’re all a part of the same whole, and since so many prostitutes are women, my feelings about women’s rights. I would love to be able to make prostitution something legitimate and respectable, instead of something desperate women turn to when they need money.
I generally feel that making these things illegal doesn’t prevent them, it just makes the conditions for them worse because people have to do them secretly. I agree with Cat’s eye that regulating prostitution, like any other job, would make things better since my main problems with it are people being forced into it, and being abused.My general feeling is that people should be able to sleep with who they want, even if they are getting money for it, but no one should be forced into doing it if they don’t wan to. But we should make slavery or abusing workers the thing that’s illegal, not prostitution itself.
1. Is man good or bad?
2. Which is more important, the individual or the group?
3. Which is more important, honor or dignity?
These were the first three questions on my Civics final, and I would love to hear any MuseBlogger’s take on any of them.
Haha, all those questions are so vague I don’t think I would be able to answer them on a test.
One: I think objective morality exists in the same fashion that free will exists. We perceive them to be present and true, but they’re probably not really possible. That doesn’t matter though, because we can’t tell, so it’s better to act like we’re in control of our lives, and that concepts like good and bad are both real. This definition means that humans are only as good or bad as they are perceived to be by others and themselves. It’s impossible to gauge exactly how good or bad one persons actions are, never mind the entirety of a species. Humanity is neither good nor bad, and attempting to define it in such limited terms would be a beautiful waste of time.
Two: The individual, to the degree that the group should always function to improve the lives of the individuals within. To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men blah blah blah
Three: I’m not really sure how honor and dignity are defined. Maybe “respect for others” and “respect for the self”? If I go with that then they are codependent, and having one without the other is almost as bad as having neither.
hmm my gut reaction to the first question is that there is neither bad nor good, so, implicitly: neither
second: i mean i think the individual is what’s most important on a base level if the objective is survival? like if i am starving in a desert and food appears the smartest action would be fore me to eat it rather than save it for someone i might meet later. i guess i need to know more about what the group means in this sense
three: idk i think these come down to pretty much being the same thing because it’s an internal perception of yourself. i supposed i would lean toward dignity but both words have lots of baggage and connotations so it’s hard
idk how those questions could possibly be graded in a fair way unless your teacher is really cool about opinions etc
He’s cool about opinions, but more importantly, he’s a really, really lazy grader. Anybody who wrote anything that made sense and had some thought put into it was going to get a good grade.
The fourth part of that section, by the way, was “How do your answers to the above questions influence your political beliefs?”
One: Well, ideas of good and bad are relative, but so are people, so it’s all a matter of perception. It’s impossible to measure because everyone has different ideas about what’s good and bad. So, neither.
Two: I think that the good of the individual, at least in government, is often the good of the group. After all, groups are made of individuals. So the two are so tied that it’s impossible to answer without some kind of specific question
Three: I’m interpreting Honor as meaning “Other people respecting you” and dignity as “you respecting yourself”, and in this case, I think that dignity is more important, because you are the only person who you will always have to deal with, and also because it is very hard to have honor that doesn’t feel fake without dignity.
These are all incredibly vague questions though, and I think that the answers would be more interesting if they gave more of a specific circumstance for each.
Objectively, I am pretty sure that “good” and “bad” are impossible to determine. There might be people who are genetically inclined to be nice to others, and of course there are psychopaths, who don’t have a conscience to discriminate between the two. On the whole, though, I think good and bad are too complicated to be determined just through someone’s actions, and I don’t believe any person is one or the other.
Personally, however, I try to convince myself that almost everyone is naturally a good person, at least in some way. This is a nice thing to think, but it’s a hard belief to maintain for very long.
1) We have free will to be either. To choose one or the other would be to stereotype.
1. Both. With varying levels of good or bad, but people who mostly do good can still do bad and bad people can still do good deeds. I think this applies for both intentions and the actual consequences of actions.
2. In most cases, the group. But if I’m the individual and I dislike the group, or I was protecting my life or freedom or something else I value highly, I’d protect myself first. It’s better to cause problems for members of a large group than allow greater harm coming to an individual or minority.
I’ve been writing an article for the school paper on the MSM deferral, which bars men who have had sex with other men since 1997 from donating blood.
Ostensibly, this is because gay men have a higher rate of HIV/AIDS transmission than other groups, and because there’s a window after transmission when the virus may not be picked up on a blood test. Obviously, there are a lot of flaws in this. Two gay men in a monogamous relationship who both test negative for HIV are no more likely to get it than anyone else. Also, the law only applies to sex had since 1997, which is way past the time when HIV wouldn’t show up on a blood test. This rules out a huge number of healthy potential donors.
This has been protested a lot- but protests have been less than effective, mostly because boycotting blood donations is a very bad idea.
Recently, the UK got rid of a similar law, making it legal for men who haven’t had sex with other men within the past year to donate blood. There’s a movement to have a similar policy adopted in the US.
My thoughts:
1) One year is a very long time to go without having sex with your partner, and nobody is going to do that for the sake of blood donation.
2) These laws don’t rule out promiscuous straight people.
3) You can always lie on the questionnaire they give you, if you really want to donate blood.
Your thoughts?
First of all, since there’s such a need for blood donors, it seems crazy for them to bar anyone from donating blood if there’s a good chance that they’re healthy. And this, from your information, I’d have to do some of my own research, seems like an incredibly ineffective way of barring people who actually do have HIV from donating blood. The law should be that anyone who has had sex with anyone who has tested HIV positive can’t donate for the amount of time that the window actually lasts for, after which point they can be tested and donate if they test negative.
I’m not allowed to donate blood, because I lived in Britain during an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease. Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s a reliable test for that, apart from absence of obvious insanity (and I’m not sure I’d pass that one).
You can’t help that, we’re all mad cows here.
I can’t donate blood, at least temporarily, because I’ve been in malaria risk areas within the last year. Of course, since I’m underage, this hardly matters.
My grandpa died of CJD, so I’m pretty sure I’m probably not allowed to donate blood either. If I had thought of this prior to the blood drive in the fall that all firsties had to either “try to donate” or volunteer at, I would have “tried” to donate, and thus got out of spending two hours volunteering (I was the last shift and it ran an hour over and I had an exam the next day).
My grandma maintains that grandpa got it when he had a blood transfusion at the VA hospital 10 years before he died, but I don’t know if that’s really the case
I can’t donate blood because I’m 5 pounds under the weight limit. I always hate it when people try to guilt people into donating, because I’d like to but I really can’t.
Yep.
“Please do this! *cute puppy photos*
“But I CAN’T!”
So I’m re-iterating this from the Rants and Plaints thread, because, now I am genuinely curious. Are mixed-race couples, and their offspring, really that shocking?
No. Not for me, at least.
I’m a halfie/mixed-race offspring. I’m not sure how common we are in terms of statistics, but I don’t encounter any discrimination or anything like that. I look mostly white, definitely more white than Asian (but a lot of people can tell that I’m not fully white if you look closely). According to my old (Chinese) ballet teacher halfies are supposedly smarter but I’m dubious of the validity of that statement.
I sometimes have had that problem of which to bubble in. Most times I’ve had to end up asking the teacher what to do because for mixed-race couples there IS no “predominant” ethnicity. On a lot of the forms I’ve had to do you either bubble in both, or Other. It sounds like I’ve had a somewhat luckier experience with forms than you have, if they don’t even give you an ‘other’ or ‘none of the above’ option.
I don’t think so. Personally, when I was in Elementary School, I was jealous of kids of mixed heritage, because it seemed more interesting than being Greek-Irish-Italian.
What muselover said.
My mom and grandparents have also mentioned that halfies are supposed smarter and prettier. *shrugs*
I’m another half-and half, mixed-race child.. I’ve generally labelled myself as white, and thought that I looked white… but people keep saying that I look like something else… I’ve actually had people distinctly ask if I was half-Chinese, which I thought was kind of odd because, as far as I’m concerned, I don’t look it. In general, I’m one of those people with whom people are just like, “What are you?”
I don’t identify as anything in particular. I don’t like focusing on being half-Asian because it seems… I’m not sure… pretentious, almost? Like those people who go on and on about how culturally experienced they are because they once went to some sort of ethnic dance concert.
My race is not a big issue for me. For some people it is. When it comes to what you mentioned in your other post, I’m not sure who it’s harder for – someone who places a lot of stock in their mixed-race-ness, or someone who just doesn’t place themselves in any category.
hapa pride, yo
I look basically white (brown hair, green eyes), but I’ve had people identify me as Japanese without knowing my name or anything else. Forms can be annoying, but as interracial couples are becoming more common forms are starting to be more inclusive.
another mixed race person chiming in to say: nope!
Not at all. Standardized forms just haven’t caught up yet. Clearly, whoever told you to pick “Middle Eastern” didn’t consider accuracy important.
If you have to fill out a form, I think you should pick the most exotic ethnicity you can honestly claim. In your case, I suppose it would be something like “South Asian.” It must be useful to have a phenotype capable of blending in with the local inhabitants of so many places; I myself stand out like a sore thumb anywhere except former British colonies and most of northern Europe.
Do any of you identify as Third Culture Kids? I know a math teacher at an international school in Europe who teaches mainly children of diplomats and employees international businesses. He himself had parents of two different cultures who then raised him in a third country, leading him to not really identify very strongly with any of them. He says he sees lots more kids these days with mixed race and culture, but the old inflexible institutions around them make it hard to feel at home anywhere.
Forms frustrate me too! I’m entirely Northern European so luckily I usually don’t face discrimination, but I don’t really like being called “White” or “Caucasian.” White just seems overly simplistic, and my ancestors weren’t from the Caucasus region. I’m only really familiar with those labels, but most of them seem unhelpful.
And another thing! It can be hard to discuss race with peers without being branded racist. Pretending that you and society are completely color blind or that race doesn’t exist is just silly! There was a Harvard Law student whose email was leaked a few years ago, and she was strung up by the media for suggesting to friends that intelligence and race might be linked. She was wrong, as many studies show, and she should’ve known better, but there are legitimate questions you should be able to ask without being immediately discarded as racist!
/sorry for the wall of text! This came up in a class once as an example of why you shouldn’t ever say anything on the internet, ever! and I got in trouble for asking how topics relating to race should be discussed. And I hadn’t even gotten to my defense of the internet!
Anyway, I recommend the “Who Am I? Race Awareness Game” and “Guess My Race” apps, products of The Race Awareness Project.
Ethnically, I’ve had it easy- I’m completely caucasian.
Culturally… I wouldn’t say third culture, not really, more like all of the above, probably predominantly 90’s boat-kid. I sort of identify with all of them more or less, even though some aspects continue to shock or appall me in each one.
I go to a school in Vienna that’s very strongly language/internationally focused- even though we aren’t very ethnically diverse (like the rest of the country) more than half have at least one non-Austrian parent.
We all see ourselves as Austrian (except our two exchange students, who decided to stay and finish school here because we’re that cool) and both of them feel at home with viennese culture. Of course, they’re also European so it’s not such a large gap, but still. What really drives me crazy is when kids move here for years but go to an international school and don’t even bother to learn about the country they live in by, say, joining a club or taking a class or just chatting with people instead of just acting as if they where back at home and half the population just suddenly went mad.
On the other hand, Austria is freakishly non-diverse, so I suppose racism is less of an common issue and there still a lot of tip-toeing around because no-one wants to risk being politically incorrect. The police are often accused of discrimination- I can’t really judge it myself, but no-one in my circle of friends or acquaintances has had any undue trouble with them. I suppose there are a lot of stereotypes, but they apply to “the tourist xyss, not our xys.”, such as Japanese tourists being avid fans of classical music, etc… I’ve also noticed that generally, people try to be specific, as in “that Korean sophmore” instead of that “that Asian sophmore”.
I don’t really know about the Third Culture thing, just because I’m kind of unclear on which culture/country I’ve been brought up in. I may just be a general internationalist.
The race thing drives me nuts. I was commenting yesterday on how I think the distribution of race at our school is interesting- “Have you noticed that there are a lot more Asian kids in 9th and 10th grade than there are in 11th and 12th? Why do you suppose that is?” “RACIST!”
So, anyway, I think we’ve kind of been driven to oversensitivity about race. That’s nice because people are actively trying not to be racists, but it’s also rather annoying. To me, demographics are just interesting, not a matter of contention.
Erm, I wouldn’t necessarily say that I’m a Third Culture kid considering the fact that even though I am of mixed race (Another hapa! Half Chinese/half Irish) my parents are both first generation Americans so were pretty much raised completely into American culture, but their parents were both immigrants. (And have amazing stories to tell, which is pretty much the most awesome thing ever.)
Culturally, I identify as American – but when I was little we lived abroad for 8ish years, so that made things even MORE confusing. Like, just when I was beginning to understand the concept of ethnicity and whatever people would ask me “where I was from” and I would usually start off by saying that I’m Chinese/Irish but really American but really I’m living [insert different country here]. And then I would tell them that I was actually born in England… Anyway. It made for some pretty confusing times.
Mostly it’s just a problem when it comes to the aforementioned forms: nobody wants to be an Other, but I always feel not-quite-right going with Asian-American or Caucasian or whatever. One time in middle school I put Pacific Islander because I just had no idea. :/
Luckily it wasn’t an important form or anything…
Well, they certainly don’t shock me. I only know one mixed-race person, but no-one’s ever said/done anything discriminating towards him.
I do know someone whose race is hard to guess, although I don’t know he’s mixed-race, and one boy in our class can be rude to him about it. I don’t think he really realizes what he’s saying, but it can get offensive. The person won’t say what his race actually is (just that he isn’t Indian, contrary to what that boy says), which might imply that the comments make him somewhat uncomfortable, although I don’t want to jump to conclusions because I have no idea what he really thinks.
I think some of people identify as white/Caucasian even if they have other ancestries because of their appearance. If everyone around you assumes you’re entirely European, you sometimes internalize it. I think it happened to me. On my mother’s side, I’m English and German, but on my father’s, I’m French, Mexican, Cherokee, Creole, and possibly (it’s disputed) African. I look much more like my father overall, but I have my mother’s skin tone (people have actually commented on how pale I am–nothing rude, just commenting), so I certainly identify more with, say, Germany than, for an alternate example, Mexico. This is true of my brother as well–truer of him, actually; he really identifies with Europe, whereas I’m just, “Well, everyone says I’m white, and that’s more than half true, so let’s just go with it.” But it may also have to do with the fact that my father doesn’t really think of himself as anything. He doesn’t know if he’s one eighth Cherokee or one sixteenth. My mother has told me stories about her great-grandmother, though, who immigrated from Germany, and that stays with me.
Nope.
I don’t know many obviously mixed-race people- the vast majority of people I know look white or Asian, although some of them probably have do different-race parents.
A lot of girls I know, myself included, drool over kpop guys and aren’t Asian, so would be fine with actually having a mixed-race relationship.
I don’t identify with a particular nationality. I used to think of myself as a sort of New Zealander, then got to middle school age and tried really hard to assimilate and failed epically, then became more confident and realised I didn’t feel strongly either way.
I also realised my true race has pointy ears and the ability to raise one eyebrow.But if you go back far enough my ancestors are from Great Britain and Russia and its European neighbours. So I think my looks would allow me to blend in in mostly white countries, and my accent would mark me as foreign.I’m wondering what the general position here on the death penalty is. It’s possible this has already been discussed, so if someone has a link that would be great
I’m personally against. I’ll expand on my reasoning if anyone wants me to.
I’m against it as well. I can see good arguments on both sides, though–although some very bad arguments are somehow popular.
Trayvon Martin. Thoughts?
Poor guy…
Sorry, but who’s he?
Trayvon Martin is a 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watchman in Florida. He was completely unarmed and not doing anything illegal at all. The police in Sanford, the city he was killed in, decided not to prosecute the watchman, which has incited a lot of rage. Additionally, Martin was black, and many people believe that racism had something to do with his death.
The watchman claimed he fired in self-defense. There’s a law in Florida, known as “Stand Your Ground,” that basically gives the benefit of the doubt to anyone who says they fired in self-defense; this law is now being debated, since it obviously leaves a lot of loopholes for murder.
Zimmerman wasn’t a watchman. He was a private citizen with a concealed carry license. And he wasn’t even part of the registered neighborhood watch.
A vigilante, essentially. Don’t you love America?
What does he have to say for himself now?
Can I just say for a minute
how absolutely angry and disgusted I am
about all the recent political attacks on women.
A law in Arizona allowing doctors to withold medical information from pregnant women if the doctor thinks it might in any way lead the woman to consider abortion, even if not knowing it is a huge health danger to the mother.
Support for a law in Georgia that would force women to carry a still-born fetus until they “naturally go into labor.” They want women to carry their dead child inside them. The fact that “cows and pigs” deliver stillborns and we don’t abort them early was used as justification. I cannot express how EMOTIONALLY SCARRING this sort of thing would be.
Women seeking abortion being forced to have a type of ultrasound that is invasive and could technically qualify as rape.
Allowing businesses to deny health coverage to women who would use said health coverage to help pay for birth control, on the basis of religious beliefs/not wanting their money to go towards such things. Well, guess what. Everyone’s money goes to things they don’t support. I didn’t get any compensation for the war, which I would have preferred not happen. I certainly didn’t want to be funding it. That doesn’t mean people didn’t have to.
And so many others.
A lot of these bills would/will almost certainly die in the senate (I am so thankful that there is a majority there that is more protective of the rights of women) but the fact that it would get that far–I can’t even. That politicians can even try to force these to happen, that they can express these things without fear of alienating voters–are there really not enough people who care about this? Do they have enough support that even by supporting laws that strip women of their rights they think they still have a chance?
Because as a human I don’t think I can deal with that, and as a woman I am afraid of what might come next.
Because if something doesn’t get done about this now then that’s just affirmation for them that these are acceptable things to support. When they are really, really not.
That… that is awful. It isn’t as bad as I thought at first because you were calling them laws instead of bills, which I thought meant they had already passed, but it’s still really shocking. I don’t even understand the Georgia one, although maybe that has to do with the fact that I think cows and pigs carrying stillborns should be given abortions. (Labor is physically painful, and cows and pigs are perfectly capable of feeling physical pain. Physical pain is, in my opinion, bad, no matter whose it is; therefore, I see no reason why cows and pigs shouldn’t get abortions in those cases. Of course, it’s much worse with humans because they’d suffer so much emotional damage as well.). But why would anyone care? Aborting a baby who is dead already isn’t harming anyone or anything in any way.
The Arizona law about witholding medical information did pass. There is a similar one going through Kansas that actually allows doctors to outright lie to their patients.
Idaho, Indiana, Missouri, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Utah all already have some sort of law that does something similar. I haven’t looked into any of these as much.
While I agree that protecting doctors is important and they shouldn’t get sued for trying to help people witholding information or lying to a patient about their health is not okay.
The forced ultrasound bill did pass, but it seems like 52% of Virginia is unhappy with it so I am hoping something might get done about it but probably not in the near future.
The Senate did block the health coverage bill that could deny women coverage, and Obama said he would veto it if it got that far, which is relieving. But that it got through the House is worrisome. There are still lobbyists working for it as well.
The Georgia bill about carrying fetuses that would not survive passed their House. I’m not sure about their senate, it might still be there. But it passed the House 102-65. Georgia’s state representative, Terry England, has been the one pushing this bill/comparing women to pigs/cows. I would like to take the time to point out that if a horse is carrying a non-viable fetus, it is removed.
There are also laws all over that incriminate women who have tried to commit suicide while pregnant, imprisoning them for attempted murder instead of providing them with the therapy and guiding them back into better mental health.
Bills that allow businesses to fire women who use contraception, alongside policies where businesses fire women who are pregnant because they need more breaks/will need maternity leave/etc.
And I don’t doubt there are a hundred more I don’t even know about.
Unfortunately, president Obama also said he would veto the National Defense Authorization Act, and then he didn’t after they changed it a bit, so I’m not sure we should be so certain that it won’t happen.
Well, as I understand it, it was the relevant (and objectionable) part of the NDAA that was changed before he signed it.
But that may not be accurate. There are so many conflicting reports, and all the Tumblr-and-Reddit-mediated scaremongering doesn’t help.
In Virginia, the legislature defeated a bill requiring invasive ultrasound but passed one requiring ordinary external ultrasound, which the governor signed into law.
Invasive ultrasounds, however, are law in Texas
Okay that is relieving. I heard otherwise from people and when I was looking it up the articles must have been a bit outdated or something.
WHAT? They can withhold medical information from me in my state? That is not okay. I should know things about my body, especially if they are life threatening. THIS IS NOT OKAY.
The sheer amount of sexism in America terrifies me.
Fourthed. It’s all very scary.
I’m pro-life.
And this is pretty caked up.
Seconded.
Thirded.
“Women seeking abortion being forced to have a type of ultrasound that is invasive and could technically qualify as rape. ”
Not “could technically qualify.” It /is/ rape. I’m not sure any details I could provide about this wouldn’t be censored, though.
Do you think there’s an article somewhere that you could link to, GAPAs permitting? I just did a quick Google search, but didn’t turn up anything very detailed.
Aw, fudgecakes. Gotta remember to use the preview button more often. It’s still me.
Dear GAPAs: I am using words to describe the female genitalia in a medical context here. While I know that MB is not health class, I feel that in this case using these words is the only way to answer this question.
Definition of a transvaginal ultrasound:
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003779.htm
What you should take from this link:
“The health care provider will place a probe, called a transducer, into the vagina.”
Virginia’s laws against forcible penetration:
leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-67.2
What you should take from this link:
“An accused shall be guilty of inanimate or animate object sexual penetration if he or she penetrates the labia majora or anus of a complaining witness, whether or not his or her spouse, other than for a bona fide medical purpose”
(for those whose anatomy needs brushing up: the labia majora are essentially the entrance to the vagina. The vagina is the inside tube part of the vulva, where the cervix aka entrance to the uterus is.)
While inserting an ultrasound probe into someone may be a medical procedure, inserting an ultrasound probe into someone who doesn’t want an ultrasound and for whom an ultrasound is not medically indicated is NOT a “bona fide medical purpose.”
tl;dr of this post is [a story the website dailykos.com ran in mid-February] (I go into a little more detail, though, and I’m not sure this link will get through)
GAPAs, I was wondering if you were coming to a decision on my post from a few hours ago or if it had gotten lost in the spam filters?
Anyway, LBK, I tried to provide an explanation, it might show up someday or it might not. You might be better off doing some internet research on your own on Virginia’s laws about rape, and then reading this excerpt from my post:
While inserting an ultrasound probe into someone may be a medical procedure, inserting an ultrasound probe into someone who doesn’t want an ultrasound and for whom an ultrasound is not medically indicated is NOT a “bona fide medical purpose.â€
Dodecahedron: Yes, we’ve moderated all of your post except the final link. Please note, however, that the Virginia legislature did not pass the ultrasound requirement you’re talking about.
Thanks!
While the Virginia legislature did not pass this requirement, it’s still important to understand what exactly is being suggested.
Also please note that Texas does have a law which requires ultrasounds.
statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.22.htm#22.011 is (as far as I can tell) the relevant part of Texas’ penal code, but it’s more confusingly organized than Virginia’s, and I can’t find a clear definition of rape to compare the procedure to.
A relevant link is guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_RFU.pdf
Here’s the first paragraph of it:
“Since the mid-1990s, several states have moved to make ultrasound part of abortion service provision. Some laws and policies require that a woman seeking an abortion receive information on accessing ultrasound services, while others require that a woman undergo an ultrasound before an abortion. Since routine ultrasound is not considered medically necessary as a component of first-trimester abortion, the requirements appear to be a veiled attempt to personify the fetus and dissuade a woman from obtaining an abortion. Moreover, an ultrasound can add significantly to the cost of the procedure.”
I had to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound for a medical reason, and the experience ranged from uncomfortable to outright painful. I was close to crying at one point from the pain. I chose to get a trans-vaginal ultrasound because my doctor recommended it. If I had not consented, it would have been rape. It would not have been any shade of grey. Dodec, you’ve made some wonderful points in this thread, I could not agree with you any more here.
All of the squids.
Every time I so much as consider the possibility of having to go through something like this in the future, I end up having, or very nearly have a panic attack. I can’t imagine what my response to the actual experience would be like.
New England seems to be slightly better in this regard, but that doesn’t mean I’m not angry about these bills. I’m still very much concerned for the health and dignity of myself and everyone else with a vagina. :/
The difference between a doctor telling you to get the procedure done versus a legislator without any medical training is huge. The former has your best interests in mind, the latter cares more about the embryo inside of you. I knew that it was medically recommended for me, I made the choice to get it done – and because of that, it wasn’t traumatizing. Here’s hoping you have many years of healthy reproductive organs so you don’t have to get one, though
Healthy organs of any sort are a good thing to have. :3
And while being recommended to by a doctor who has your best interests in mind would certainly be less traumatizing, I’m a little terrified of anyone doing anything to that region of me who isn’t a close friend or partner who I know I can trust. Like… it’s this paralyzing fear of mine, and one of the reasons I’m a little wary of doctors in general. Going to see a gynecologist would actually be a really big step for me, and legislators just need to stay the cake out of my reproductive organs (which I DON’T necessarily want to use for reproduction) :<
While I understand that having a doctor poking around down there can be a bit scary, neglecting that aspect of your health can lead to a lot more doctors poking around in an even less comfortable manner. I promise, cervical cancer is even scarier than a PAP smear! I don’t know how old you are, but you should start getting yearly ob/gyn exams when you’re 18 or become sexually active, whichever comes first – and any good doctor will take your concerns in mind when examining you.
I don’t really have a fully formed opinion on abortion, but this…
This is ridiculous, that’s the only word I can think of that I can say here.
This is nauseating.
I’m completely serious in saying that laws like this are exactly why I don’t want to live in America.
*beats head against desk repeatedly*
Why? Why?! WHY?!
Shouldn’t what one does to one’s body be one’s own decision (unless of course it is seriously life- or health-threatening, like drugs or alcohol)? Abortion is not pleasant. Abortion is not something anyone desires for themselves or their unborn child. I get the sense that these legislators are convinced that all women who abort fetuses do it willy-nilly and without reason or forethought.
I get the feeling that they’re trying to force their (extreme) religious beliefs on me. Especially with the Santorum/Birth Control issue. I have no problem if he personally doesn’t want to use birth control, but attempting to restrict access to it (considering that 99% of American women have used it at some point in their lives according to an article I read) just because of his religious beliefs is revolting.
The legislators (and people who agree with them) feel that women should be punished for having sex. It’s that simple.
Also, could you please consider the language you’re using in the future? While the main body of your argument is sound, calling an embryo/fetus an “unborn child” is not medically true, even if it is what you personally believe.
Using neutral language is important because it’s disrespectful of others’ beliefs, emotionally manipulative, and just plain inaccurate if you don’t.
(I’m also curious as to why you feel drugs and alcohol are seriously self-threatening to such a degree that they should be criminalized. I believe the laws against them are to prevent damage to others through their use. )
“Using neutral language is important…”
“The legislators (and people who agree with them) feel that women should be punished for having sex.”
I’d ask you to please follow your own advice. It’s very good advice.
If you’d like to offer an alternative explanation for the legislators’ actions, please feel free to do so, but until then I will continue to state facts as facts.
Here are four:
The legislators believe that abortions are fundamentally wrong and (whether they’re equatable or not) as morally reprehensible as murder.
or
The legislators believe that pregnancy is a risk that a woman assumes by having unprotected sex and that she should not be able to abort a fetus because she doesn’t like the outcome of that risk.
or
The legislators note that abortion and contraception are hot-button election items this year and want to be associated with anti-abortion legislation for their reelection campaigns.
or
The legislators believe that ultrasounds can create visual, emotional bonds between mother and fetus in a way that other kinds of medical information cannot, so much so that they could change her decision and prevent an unnecessary abortion.
I’m not saying these explanation are mine or that they’re bulletproof; just that they exist. Nothing about abortion is simple.
I think it’s important to note here that Dodec wasn’t necessarily talking about abortion, but the current legislative trend of laws/bills that essentially make it much harder for women to have safe sex–by taking away/limiting contraceptive options as well as laws/bills that remove options from or punish women who then have to deal with pregnancies that negatively impact the mother’s health, pregnancies that may not produce a viable fetus, unwanted pregnancies, and more.
Please note that your second explanation is the same thing as what I said, only phrased in a way that some people find less offensive.
No, not really. There’s a difference between not thinking someone should be able to abort a fetus that’s the outcome of something they did and thinking they should be punished for what they did, because the former could be because of Cat’s Eye’s first explanation rather than your explanation. (I don’t know which is more likely; I’m awful at understanding people who do things I disagree with; I’m just saying that the two explanations don’t necessarily have to be the same).
How is being forced to carry something unwanted and potentially dangerous inside you for nine months not punishment?
Even though they may not consciously be thinking “women who want abortions deserve to be punished,” the result is the same.
You didn’t say, “if these people get what they want, women will be punished for having sex.” You said, “The legislators (and people who agree with them) feel that women should be punished for having sex. It’s that simple,” in response to a post expressing confusion about their motives. Even if the end result is punishment, you seemed to be implying that this was the legislators’ deliberate intention. I’m still not necessarily saying it isn’t; I really have no idea, myself. I’m just saying that being against abortions and birth control, even to a radical degree, does not necessarily have to be the same as feeling that women should be punished for having sex
And I said only that they might not consciously be thinking it, not that they didn’t feel it. Unconscious thoughts are thoughts too.
Oh, I see. That makes sense.
I understand that what you’re saying could cause Cat’s Meow’s second explanation. There are other things that also could cause it, though, like her first explanation. I can’t think of any noticeable differences between a world in which Cat’s Meow’s first explanation causes the her second and one in which your explanation causes her second. That doesn’t mean they’re equally likely, of course: The world wouldn’t look any different to me if Belgium was a government conspiracy, but that doesn’t mean there’s a 50% chance of that being the case. It does mean that we need to look at human nature in order to form our conclusions. The effects would be the same either way, so we should look at the mindsets that determine which cause is more likely to stem from it. (Incidentally, I’m not saying you’re not doing that; I’m trying to guide the discussion to a more constructive place). I think this debate would be much more likely to actually get somewhere if someone would explain why they think their hypothesis is better than the others. (The only reason I’m not doing so is that I don’t have a hypothesis; I don’t know enough about human nature to come to a conclusion based on it).
With regards to the “visual, emotional bonds”, it should be clear that, for the Virginia ultrasound bill at least, the doctors would not have been required to actually show the ultrasound to the woman, only offer to.
If you were being reasonable, I would be happy to discuss this with you. There is nothing that can’t be discussed reasonably without being clouded by emotions.
How is she being unreasonable? I’d say what you’re doing here is slipping dangerously close to tone-trolling.
“The legislators (and people who agree with them) feel that women should be punished for having sex.â€
This is clearly a non-neutral opinion. I don’t necessarily disagree or agree with Dodecahedron’s post or with the legislators’ own explanations for their decisions, but an opinion is an opinion and should be regarded as such regardless of content. Presenting it as an absolute truth or as a fact is, as I see it, unreasonable. In my experience, strong language like this, no matter how true or self-evident it is may seem, does nothing to promote calm discussion. Even if something is independently and objectively true (if that can even be ascertained), strong, emotion-centered language only damages the discussion. Unfortunately, it seems to be a common technique of people of all political, religious, and philosophical beliefs, and so discussions often seem to become highly emotional at the expense of logic. Please don’t misunderstand me–I’m not saying I’m above this. If anything, I’m one of the worst people I know when it comes to separating emotions from arguments. That’s why I tend to avoid anything that may become an emotional confrontation for me. Nonetheless, I prize logic above all else in discussions, and all I want to do is protect it.
But topics such as abortion are highly emotional. I’ll use abortion as an example here: it’s not something that can simply be decided by hard logic, since there is no conclusive scientific proof that the unborn fetus is/isn’t a human being/potential human being. Especially since both sides are arguing with basic human rights (and feel those are being threatened). Plus, many cases involving abortion have highly emotional contexts, such as rape or incest. To exclude emotions from the debate would be denying the psychological impact of these cases.
I’m not saying that these discussions should turn into flame wars, but that some emotion is necessary. As far as I understood Dodeca, she objected to Bibliophile referring to a fetus as unborn child, since it’s technically still a fetus and calling it an “unborn child” is somewhat like calling abortion “baby murder”.
Her statement is clearly her opinion and she’s obviously not neutral on the issue, but she’s using correct terminology: “The legislators (and people who agree with them) feel that women should be punished for having sex.”, and not “The evil power-hungry wackos feel that etc”. If I understood her and Jadestone correctly, it’s about keeping the language neutral, not the statements.
YES, this. Especially that last paragraph.
We all have opinions and the right to express them! And we should!
Comparing what Bibliophile said about the fetus/unborn baby terms to the second half of Dodec’s statement–
There are legislators are pushing bills that make having sex harder and more dangerous for women by attempting to limit/tightly control contraceptive options and actually punishing them for using them–by denying them health care, and in some cases even firing them. That is literally like saying “if I have proof that you are having sex and I am uncomfortable with it, I will take away health options or your job.”
Merriam-Webster definition of punishment:
“a: suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution
b: a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial procedure.”
Losing health care options or your job causes suffering. In the form of stress/anxiety as well as possibly medical issues. And we all know how hard it is to find a job these days, and it’s certainly not easy for women in many situations. And these things would be happening in response to an employer finding out that the women was making choices in her personal life (that keep her safe, health, and avoid even more dangerous legal situations like unplanned, unwanted pregnancies) and disagreeing with them.
To me, this is punishment. This is saying “I don’t like your choices so I will do things in an attempt to make you regret them.”
And it’s scary.
* meant bookgirl, not Biblio, oops. Wrong ‘B’ name!
Bubbles referred to a fetus as an unborn child, not me. Although I think her post made it clear that it she didn’t consider abortion baby murder, so it might have even just been a mistake.
A bad day for names for all of us, eh?
Sorry Bibliophile, I have no idea how I blanked so completely on that one. I don’t mean to attack bubbles for her choice of words: I just wanted to point out what I (and some others) found inappropriate about it. I’m sorry if I caused any offense to her.
DO NOT BE ACCUSATORY OF PIGGY
FOR HE IS PIGGY
…on the actual subject, I think that you’re slightly misunderstanding Piggy’s statement. It’s just that everyone here is getting a bit defensive, and he’s looking for a peaceful and balanced argument.
No, everyone should be as accusatory of me as they want. I don’t get accused of as much as I probably should. If you didn’t know, many (most?) of the older MBers aren’t exactly fond of me, and with good reason. And I’m perfectly fine with that.
I’m sorry but I also was wondering at Lizzie’s statement, it was a valid question. And I also thought his tone was getting a bit out of place, describing someone’s behavior as “unreasonable” when expressing an opinion. I know it was not necessarily meant to sound as such but through the voiceless wall of the internet that is how it sounded to me.
And while I know comments like the first two lines are fun for joking on the random threads and stuff but also they make me kind of uncomfortable on this sort of thread, as though saying someone’s opinion or statements matter more than others.
Why shouldn’t I be accusatory of Piggy?
Because his views differ from mine? If nobody’s views are ever challenged, then we’ll never consider them and never have a chance to grow and change.
Because you personally agree with him? If you think this, maybe you should think for a while about why you believe what you do.
Because he’s been on the blog for so long? Check Who’s Here–I’ve been here five months longer, but we’ve both been here more than five years, and we’re both college freshmen. And age or familiarity is really not how you should judge the validity of someone’s statements.
On the actual subject:
I think Piggy can represent his opinions just fine. I’m defensive because my rights are at stake, and I need to /defend/ them.
I’m pretty sure he was joking, actually. I agree that it was a bit uncalled-for, but it wasn’t for any of the possible reasons you listed, at least.
Also note that Piggy didn’t say he agrees with the legislators; he said he thinks their reasons are different from what you think they are. I don’t think any MuseBlogger is attacking your rights.
Why did 2 people squid me? I’m not complaining, just pointing things out.
…uh, excuse me? We’re all musers here. No one gets special privileges, and no one gets immunity from being challenged when they’ve chosen to enter a Hot Topic discussion. Wanting a discussion to be civil does not mean wanting every statement to be neutral. I think in this context, it’s pretty clear that most things said (with the exception of saying that such-and-such is the law, blahblahblah is the scientific terminology for x, etc) are one’s point of view and opinions, and attempts to frame presenting personal opinions as unreasonable seem to me like an attack on the presentation rather the context, e.g. tone trolling. That said, due to piggy’s history of occasionally posting tone-deaf/unnecessarily condescending posts and of minimodding as a way to score points, I tend to be less likely to give him the benefit of the doubt than I should, and so I apologize for that.
I’ve never been intentionally condescending, I’ve never intended to “minimod”, and I have no idea what points there are to score. I know that I persistently seem to tick people off, particularly you older folks, and I’m trying as hard as I can to avoid that. I honestly would never say something to another MuseBlogger to intentionally anger or annoy them. If that’s how you choose to interpret what I say, then I can only apologize and try even harder in the future. Even though a large group of you more or less hate me (and you have every right to do so), I respect and value each of you more than you probably realize.
So, everyone, I’m sincerely sorry. I wanted to try and help this discussion, but people have taken offense at it, and so I apologize for messing up again. I’ve always been awful at these things, and I can’t seem to improve. I’ve been meaning for a couple weeks to take a little break from MuseBlog, and I think I’ll do that now. I have nothing more to add, and I don’t care about defending myself from any further confrontation. I’ll see you all in a while, albeit not on this thread. I remember now why I’ve been avoiding it.
This is a thread for debate. People will have their opinions challenged by others. All of us will.
Cake. I forgot that this thread isn’t a place to say anything you aren’t completely serious about.
And now we’ve all made Piggy feel bad.
Maybe I’ll take a break, too.
It’s called Hot Topics for a reason. Everyone’s opinions should be respected. If you challenge someone’s point of view, don’t put them down for it. Everyone on this thread has said something that annoyed me at some point.
I agree with Piggy’s call for more calm logic, because emotions do have a habit of interfering. Emotions do have a place. A world without emotion is empty. But they need to sort of clear out for logic sometimes so we don’t all break down in an emotional, sobbing pile of arguing avatars.
And as said before. No one here should be more privileged than anyone else. There are bloggers here that I look up to, Piggy included, but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to challenge them or that I think that they deserve special treatment. ESPECIALLY not on this thread.
If you need me, I’ll be strangling the idiot f—s who devised this bill with cutting sarcasm and smacking them with my hat.
Ye-es, emotions can interfere, but without sentiments like compassion I shudder to think what results a debate would bring. I agree that there needs to be a logical structure and argumentation and that decisions/arguments shouldn’t only be based on emotion. Still, you can’t consider a topic- such as a new law- without considering how people will be affected by it, especially if it will affect said people profoundly.
Plus, I feel it’s my -or anyone’s, for that matter- right to be somewhat peeved and vocal about matters that I feel severely restrict my rights. That obviously doesn’t extend to flaming and trolling, but emotions do have a place in a debate when they’re controlled, which they seemed to have been so far. Here, it’s the GAPAs call and I’m sure they’ll intervene when and if they feel that it’s necessary. Emotions don’t necessarily contradict a “careful, clear and respectful” discussion.
I feel strongly about this because I value emotions highly – I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Myers-Briggs test, but I would be an F type, like approx. 60% of the population. This doesn’t mean that I want debates solely to hinge on emotions because of my personal views, that would be just plain ridiculous, but I strongly believe that there can be calm debates where emotions are included as long as the debaters keep their heads. Since emotions will figure largely in many people’s conclusions, they should be kept on the table in the debate. And I don’t mean silly mood swings as opposed logic, I mean (for instance) considering what a woman in Texas who is forced to go through an (medically unnecessary) invasive ultrasound after being raped goes through and letting that impact the final judgement.
I hope I made myself clear, if not, please ask. I’ve been writing a french paper for the past 5 hours or so et je ne pense plus dans la même langue que vous.
*I know, it’s technically not an emotion but an emotional capacity. Which requires emotion.
Of course, that compassion should include the other participants in the debate—a point that sometimes falls by the wayside even among friends.
It’s perfectly possible to be passionate and also to examine one’s emotional responses, particularly in a written medium which allows you to re-read and to edit. If someone really just wants to vent, then it might be helpful to preface one’s remarks with a note to that effect.
Before weighing in on a potentially contentious subject, I always find it useful to ask “what is my purpose here?” If persuading or informing is the aim, then diplomacy becomes much more important. Anyone who feels attacked is almost certainly going to react on the defensive, reinforcing their existing opinions, therefore attempts to educate will likely fail. Then some people are more interested in stirring up heat, so they’re more apt to consider diplomacy an impediment. Of course, those are only two of many other possible approaches.
No, of course! I didn’t make myself clear enough on that point in my post. To clarify: it does have an important place, but it can’t overshadow logic, and logic can’t overshadow emotion.
These bills are crazy. I don’t know if they’re pushing some weird controlling agenda or just flexing their biceps at us or what, but this is just ridiculous. It doesn’t affect me on a personal physical level, but it affects me emotionally. What are they THINKING? ARE they thinking? What is the reasoning behind this? It’s no longer the land of the free.
Welcome to America, land of the free*!
*your freedom and rights may be recalled at any time.
I think it depends on what you’re debating. If you’re debating whether a law is a good idea, emotions are vital, but I don’t think that’s the case here, because no-one has said they agree with the law, and you can’t have a debate with just one side. If you’re debating what someone else’s motivation might be for doing something, such as making a law, I don’t see how they could be useful, and I certainly can see how they might get in the way. Compassion towards fellow debaters is always important, of course, but I’m talking about when it’s used in one’s arguments.
Bibliophile- Just like there hasn’t been any argument in favor of the laws, there hasn’t really been any argument for a good reason held by legislators to make those laws. Cat’s Meow made some good guesses, but didn’t defend them (I don’t think most of them are logically defensible, taken in the context of the legislative shift Jade expands upon.).
I personally find that getting caught up in ensuring that language is neutral or removing all emotion in favor of logic can be as bad as news organizations trying to present “balanced” perspectives on issues. They’re preceded by have good intentions, but pragmatically it’s easier to understand each side when you get both their emotional and logical arguments. When I read an OpEd in the NY Times I expect a byline about the author, giving me some insight as to how en’s forming en’s option and whether there might be any conflicts of interest (even when there’s no conflict per se, there’s always interest!). The Economist is very interesting because it does the exact opposite- rejecting bylines and even author’s names in favor of an edited single voice approach. I don’t know who has written the article I’m reading but I do know that it’ll probably favor free trade. On MB we all know each other fairly well, and even when we don’t, we’re all musers here! As long as there’s no flaming, I think we should express our opinions with emotion and our statements with facts- especially on Hot Topics.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying. I didn’t mean to imply that relevant emotions shouldn’t be expressed. I meant that this isn’t really a debate in which there are any reasonable emotional arguments. Many, perhaps most, debates aren’t like that, but when trying to figure out how someone else thinks… I don’t see how they could be helpful. Expressing emotions during the debate is fine; I just don’t think they have a place in the arguments on this topic. You’re right, though; there haven’t actually been any arguments on the subject of debate. It’d be nice if we started thinking of some.
While I think it is important to remain respectful of one another, we need to realize that some topics are quite personal and one’s discussion of these topics is impossible to separate from an emotional reaction. These are /hot/ topics because they are controversial and because the discussion, and people’s feelings, get heated. IT IS OKAY TO HAVE FEELINGS. It is okay to have opinions and emotions about those opinions and I don’t see why we can’t express those emotions while debating in a respectful manner.
I think those are neutral words? If she had said “conservative” or “right-wing” then that would have been not-neutral. But in this case it is the legislators and their supporters, so…
“The legislators (and people who agree with them) feel that women should be punished for having sex.â€
It’s not that, though. We’ve interpreted Piggy’s statement differently. What I believe he was pointing out is that the statement above is not spoken in a neutral way. It is not spoken from the legislator’s point of view or even from a neutral one. It is very one-sided. You have to assume that the legislators have some sort of reason for this, convoluted as it may be, and they’re not being given a chance at all in this argument.
What I’m saying is that there’s two sides and a center. There’s the side of those against it all, the side of the legislators, and a demilitarized zone in the center. The current side being heavily pushed right now is the Against side, and the For side is not being given a chance. I’m not saying I AGREE with the For side, or even the Against one, but we need to take a step back and approach it from the middle ground.
The above quoted statement is not neutral. The legislators are not necessarily out to “punish women for having sex”. While I can’t tell you what they ARE out to do, there’s no reason to simply punish women for having sex.
Piggy wants to approach it from the DMZ of the argument, and that’s fine. I just wanted to try to clear up what he meant, or at least what his words meant to me. I don’t think he meant liberal v. conservative.
We aren’t going to have any sort of discussion at all if we don’t have statements which present sides. Not everything is neutral. I invited someone to say something for the For side in my response to Piggy.
Here’s something else Piggy said:
“If you were being reasonable, I would be happy to discuss this with you. There is nothing that can’t be discussed reasonably without being clouded by emotions.”
Since you seem so keen on explaining what he really meant, tell me what I said that was unreasonable.
Something else to think about:
“While I can’t tell you what they ARE out to do, there’s no reason to simply punish women for having sex.”
That doesn’t mean they aren’t doing it. Just because you want everyone to be nice and logical doesn’t mean they are.
On Piggy and being reasonable:
It wasn’t unreasonable. The point you were making was not in itself unreasonable, but the way that you said it, to me was.
On the quote of me:
What you say is true. But they are not simply punishing women for having sex. Some senator did not just stand up and say “Hey, I have an idea! For literally no reason other than for the sake of doing it, let’s punish women for having sex! Why the hell not?”. They’ve got to have a reason buried in there somewhere, because I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that out of nowhere our legislators turned out to be sexist pigs all at the same time.
How those points tie into each other:
The way in which it was said was a rather unreasonable extreme that refused to acknowledge the other side of the the argument.
Unreasonable – verb:
Not guided by or based on good sense.
Beyond the limits of acceptability or fairness.
To me, going to that extreme and stating as a fact that, plain and simple, they just felt like punishing women for having sex was beyond the limits of fairness. I’m not saying I agree with them! I’m not saying that I don’t disapprove of it with the fire of a thousand burning suns! I’m just saying that even when you’re vehemently opposed to something you still have to acknowledge the other side’s argument. So to me, yes. The way you said it was a little unreasonable. But we’re talking about a tiny quote of your overall point now, we’re not even zooming back out to the whole argument.
As for being logical, I never said that I want everyone to be nice and logical all the time. What I said, when expressing my own opinions, was that I felt that logic shouldn’t overshadow emotion and emotion shouldn’t overshadow logic. That’s how I feel things should be. I never stated that because I felt that way so the world should be. I said I agreed with Piggy’s call for calm logic and later clarified it. I don’t want us all to turn into Spock. And above, I was attempting to clarify what I thought was Piggy’s point, not reinforce my own.
Toning down hyperbole is very reasonable! It seems like we all agree on that. Sadly, I think many of these legislators do try to punish women for having sex; not for no reason at all but rather for religious reasons. I’d prefer less abortions- they’re not good for anybody- and providing contraception and education appear to be the best way of reducing unwanted pregnancies. Christian tradition has taught for a long time that sex is sinful unless done within marriage with the intent of producing children. There’s also a long Christian tradition of blaming women (Eve!), and holding them to a different standard than men. It is entirely plausible that legislators want to punish women who have sex outside of marriage or not solely for procreation.
Citing religion as a reason is reasonable. What they’re DOING is not reasonable, but I still feel better knowing that people here don’t think they’re just doing it for the lulz or something.
Yes, I just used “doing it for the lulz” in an actual, serious sentence.
Citing religion as a reason is not reasonable when it’s in relation to legislators passing bills, though. It’s actually unconstitutional.
I did not mean that I thought religion was a reasonable excuse to force one’s policies on an entire nation of many faiths and none. I meant that I was simply satisfied that they at least they could find a way to justify it, at least in their heads, and weren’t simply doing it for no reason other than “because they could”.
In other words, I disagree with the entire prospect of using religion to push idiotic bills through and apply them to a variety of people. If it makes sense, I’m happy that they’re not simply doing it because they feel like it, but I’m not happy that they’re doing it.
I’ve mangled myself in a web of things I do and don’t agree with and I keep talking myself deeper into it.
Specifically addressing Jadestone’s post above me, I DO NOT think that using religion to justify a bill is a good thing, not at all. That is something I strongly disagree with.
Logical does not mean emotionless. Emotions can be illogical (for instance, the way the amount people are willing to donate to save birds’ lives has been shown not to be correlated the amount of lives saved), or they can be neutral (for example, the idea that live birds are preferable to dead birds is not intrinsically illogical). In fact, people with brain damage whose intelligence is not affected but are rendered unable to experience emotions cannot function well enough to be logical. They may spend hours trying to figure out whether to use the red pen, since they have no preference. I can think of at least one preference that is absolutely necessary for logic of any sort: the idea that the individual who is thinking’s knowledge is preferable to en’s ignorance. This preference is neither logical nor illogical; neither is intrinsically better than the other, nor are they intrinsically equal. However, no-one lacking this preference would be motivated to be logical.
My point is that there is a huge difference between saying everyone should be logical all the time and saying that everyone should be like Spock (who is emotionless all the time). In fact, being both logical ad emotionless is impossible for reasons discussed in the previous paragraph. Being logical all the time simply means not having the emotions that are intrinsically illogical; the rest can be just as intense as or even more intense than average. I think everyone should be logical all the time, but I definitely think people should have emotions. What I’ve read about the people with brain damage who’ve lost their emotions… I have no doubt that I do not consider that desirable.
I don’t know whether you consider knowledge of the truth desirable, but I do. If knowledge of the truth is one’s goal, then one should be logical all the time, although there might be exceptions if they conflict with other goals. I want everyone to know the truth, but it isn’t others’ fault if they don’t want that. Therefore, if you do not desire to know the truth about everything, I can’t give you a good reason why you should be logical all the time. Even if you do, if you don’t think that others should know the truth about everything, I can’t give you a good reason why everyone should be logical all the time, since if that’s the case, my argument is based on emotions you don’t have. However, even if that is the case, I can point out the flaws in your idea of what a completely logical person is like. It doesn’t mean only motivated by logic. It simply means “inevitably able to come to the conclusions that are most likely to be accurate based on the available data.”
“Even if that is the case” should be “Even if it is important to you to know the truth.”
I agree with you… just saying Spock isn’t the best example of total lack of emotion. Think of Amok Time, where he’s so pleased Kirk is alive. And he has a sense of humour.
Oh. Well, I haven’t actually seen Star Trek; I was using that example because he’d mentioned him.
No problem! Your point came across anyway, I just wanted to correct assumptions about my fandom.
I mentioned on the random thread that I’m doing a paper on a controversial issue, so I’ve finally settled on corporal punishment of children, i.e. spanking, etc
Just wondering what all of your thoughts on this is. Personally, I’m against it. There are more than a few studies that I’ve found that correlate it to antisocial tendencies and mental disorders.
I’m also against it. Other studies show that it doesn’t even effectively prevent misbehavior. If something doesn’t even serve its purpose, it doesn’t even matter whether or not the purpose being served it worth the cost because there is a cost and no real benefits.
According to the psychological research of a man named Skinner, considered the most influential behavioral psychologist in the field, behaviors are learned through pursuit of rewards. For instance, if a dog receives a treat every time it sits down at the word “sit!”, it will learn to sit down when told to sit even when no treat is given. (It’s actually more complicated than that, but that’s the gist of it.)
Rewards can be of two types: positive and negative. The dog training example is a positive reward: the dog receives a reward for performing an action. A negative reward is removing something disliked; for instance, a parent might tell their child, “If you do extra chores this week I’ll push your curfew back from 10:30 to 11:30.”
One might notice that nowhere in this is the idea of punishment. One doesn’t train a dog to sit by hitting them every time they don’t sit on command; one doesn’t get a child to do extra chores by scolding them when they don’t do extra chores.
The reason for this is that punishment doesn’t teach a subject what to do or not do, but that they should attempt to avoid punishment. A puppy that’s hit when it pees on the rug hasn’t learned not to pee on the rug; it’s learned not to pee on the rug where its owner can see.
Similarly, corporal punishment doesn’t actually teach children to perform or not perform certain actions. If you spank a child for being repeatedly rude to their fragile old grandmother, for instance, the child hasn’t learned to be polite to the elderly. Instead, they’ve learned that if they are rude to their grandmother when you’re watching, bad things will happen. They will still feel free to insult their grandmother when you’re not there. A more effective method might be to take the child aside and explain to them that what they did was wrong, then ask them to apologize to their grandmother. When they apologize, reward them with a smile or a pat on the back, and they will learn that politeness towards their grandmother has positive results, i.e. your approval.
I strongly disagree with Skinner in some areas, but this isn’t one of them.
Punishment is effective for short-term results, though. In addition, punishment (including corporal) does act as a deterrent to other children who see the one getting spanked. Rewards work, but punishment (or the threat of) does have a clear effect and does get children to behave.
Oh loverly, this is getting all nested, confusing and paleophytical (it’s all the Great Offscreen War to me).
To repost: I think we were talking about the (new) political legislation mentioned in post 15/ the current attitude towards women’s rights/abortion. Shall we keep debating that?
On a random, unrelated note, what are your views on the Greek debt crisis/Eurozone struggles?
Found this while doing my research paper:
“Undergraduate admissions policies: the point system
Beginning in 1998, [the University of Michigan] replaced the grid system with an index point system. Significantly, the University announced that the index point system was designed to achieve the same racial outcome as the old “grid” systems.
To maintain the racial mix it wanted, the index point system awarded points for various personal and academic achievements on a 150 point scale. Applicants who received 94 points or so were all but assured acceptance. Like the grid system, the index point system gave overwhelming weight to membership in a preferred racial group. For example, an applicant received twelve points for a perfect score on the SAT, 1 point for an outstanding essay, and 20 points for being a member of a preferred race.”
This continued up to 2003, until the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional in Gratz v Bollinger. That was only nine years ago. Twenty whole points for being a member of a “preferred race” or ethnic minority, compared to only twelve for a perfect SAT score and one for an outstanding essay?!
I really don’t mean to offend anyone. But to be brutally honest, I find this ridiculous. I have very strong views on affirmative action. Is it just me?
That’s completely ridiculous. I can empathize that universities want to promote racial diversity, but really? I’m glad they ruled it unconstitutional.
The problem with affirmative action is that it’s a bandaid solution to race (and gender) based inequality that would be much, much harder to actually “fix” in any concrete way. Affirmative action still exists because POC are still doing worse in basically every measurable category than the white majority. Legally, POC were second class citizens until only a few generations back. Affirmative action is a problem because instead of trying to fix the root problems (why are there discrepancies in school performance, arrest rates, income levels, etc?) it basically goes “well statistically speaking, your life has probably been a fair bit [snipped a NSFMB word that means “crummier”] than if you were born white, so we’ll take that into account”. It is, at its core, a very inelegant way of undoing some of the damage of a multi-faceted problem with no easy solution. Check your privilege.
I’m not really sure if this qualifies as a hot topic, but there’s a trend I’ve noticed recently that has started annoying me. Lately, more and more girls I know are starting to heavily photoshop their profile pictures on the-site-that-shall-not-be-named. I do empathize the need to tweak a picture a little, especially since I’m not the most photogenic of people to begin with. If they’re just fixing the lighting a little or trying to even out the skin tone, fine.
But a certain acquaintance now has graduated to the doll-face stage of digital makeovers. New eyecolor, completely different face shape, I’m not sure what she did to her lips… I could go on, but I won’t. I can barely recognize her. What repulses me is how many people are posting things like “Wow, you look so pretty in that picture!”. I just don’t… I mean, we see her every weekday, we know she doesn’t look like that and I don’t “get” the point of her posturing online for people who know better.
Where is this going? Will there be a time when everyone photoshops their profile pictures so grotesquely? I dislike the somewhat awful pictures of me as much as the next person, but honestly? What’s the point of trying to lie to people who see you every day anyway? I’m on social networking sites to better keep in touch with friends, so I’d rather be authentic than pretty-but-fake. I just …eh, never mind. If it was just one person, fine, but a lot of girls are starting to do it. I understand the temptation, I don’t like most pictures of myself either and I have tweaked the lighting on one once- still, I hate the way we’re perpetuating false images of beauty planted by the advertising industry. Thoughts?
Well, my profile picture consists of me with an arm around one of my friends while cuddling a puppy.
So being me, I shopped my head out and replaced it with the I LIED face. Other than that, thought, I don’t shop my pictures for anything more than lighting and simple cleanup, like removal of attention-drawing objects. Personally, I haven’t noticed this trend – maybe because most of my female friends aren’t that type of person, maybe it hasn’t reached them yet, maybe they don’t know how to use Photoshop, whatever. It’s really stupid, though, the way people “fix” themselves digitally. It doesn’t make them more beautiful.
Speaking of Photoshop, has anyone tried out CS6 beta yet? I quite like it. I have yet to try out the video editing, but any video editing is still better than CS5, and I’m definitely loving the new Content-Aware filling and patching tools. It also seems a lot faster overall. There also seems to be a little more focus on 3D.
For the most part I don’t edit my pictures at all… a small part of it’s because I don’t actually have Photoshop, but it’s mostly because, well… I like to think I look attractive enough on my own. Makeup isn’t even appealing to me, really. I just don’t see the point.
That being said, Photoshop sounds reeeaaally fun. :>
I’ve never actually posted a picture of myself on the Internet, actually, but I certainly wouldn’t do that if I did. I also don’t wear makeup (or nail polish), but this is mostly due to the fact that I don’t even want people to be attracted to me, and if someone else actually cares enough about how I look for nonromantic reasons to not like me as a person as much as they would if I looked better, they probably don’t matter, anyway, so it seems like it would just waste my time. Anyway, I have non-normal aesthetic standards; for instance, I don’t think that certain color combinations look better than others. I’m told that if I don’t at least wear clothes everyone thinks seem to “match” life really won’t go well, so I do it, but I resent having to pander to people who would actually care about how I look as if it’s their business. This has nothing to do with the topic, does it… Oops.
I didn’t know people were photoshopping their pictures like that, but it doesn’t really bother me, personally. If that’s how someone wants to spend their time, I don’t object.
Since the discussion at 15 has margined out, I’m adding a comment here. (Note that this is a general comment, not a reply to any individual as such.)
Of course it’s okay to have emotions. I don’t think anyone has denied that. But the trouble begins when emotions are presented as evidence or justification or argument—or used as an all-purpose weapon to trump any opposing argument. Then the discussion starts to veer off into the territory of: MY feelings are valid, but YOU need to listen to reason.
What if the legislators under discussion said, “we’ll, I can’t separate my emotions from my vote, and I feel very strongly that every life conceived deserves a chance to be born and every other concern is secondary to that”? How does the discussion move forward if it becomes a volley between feelings and feelings, outrage and outrage?
While on the road the past couple of weekends, I was listening to “The Souls of Black Folk” by W.E.B. Du Bois. I’d read it long ago, but listening gave it new dimensions. It was disturbing to recognize how much remains relevant, I must say. In regard to this discussion, I would recommend the essay critiquing Booker T. Washington. Du Bois clearly feels very deeply about his subject, and the stakes he lays out are very high indeed: as he sees it, the difference between true freedom for people of African descent versus trading slavery for serfdom. Yet Du Bois makes his passion serve rather than obstruct his reasoning.
That’s not easy to do, of course. It requires practice. As I have said before, what better place to practice than MuseBlog, where people wish you well even when they disagree? That’s a luxury not easily found elsewhere.
Thank you. That’s exactly what I was trying to say, but apparently, it kept coming out the wrong way.
So apparently Mr. Santorum was campaigning in a bowling alley in some town, and upon interacting with a young boy in one of the lanes using a pink bowling ball that “You’re not going to use the pink ball. We’re not gonna let you do that. Not on camera.”
Santorum also said, “friends don’t let friends use pink balls.”
Several gay rights groups have spoken out against this.
My only reaction is this:
…wat
WAT
YOU ARE SO DAMN HOMOPHOBIC THAT YOU RESTRICT CHILDREN FROM BEING WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE COLOR PINK
I don’t want to live on this planet anymore.
You bring this up and you fail to mention how he also called Obama the n-word? I mean they’re both pretty terrible, but man.
Maybe she didn’t hear about that.
I wasn’t seriously giving him a hard time (pretty sure Castle knows me better than that), but his comment seemed like the appropriate place to bring up the other horrible thing Santorum did yesterday!
“She”?
I thought Meow said that. Oops.
He did WHAT?
Biblio, Rosebud, I’m male. Perhaps my comment about waking up next to Edward Cullen threw you off a bit, but I’m very much male, though I find it highly amusing that you thought otherwise.
Julia, I could tell. No worries. But I was not aware of this. Why did he…OFF TO YOUTUBE!
Actually, I didn’t think Castle was female; I thought the poster of that comment was someone other than Castle (Meow, who actually is female). I was only talking about you in third person for clarity just now, by the way, but it was fun.
Well, he didn’t really. He more said The anti-war, government nig–, uh…America was, uh, a source for division around the world. And that what we were doing was wrong. We needed to pull out and we needed to pull back.â€
So he might have been about to say negotiator, or something else. Still, I wouldn’t be surprised.
Oh. My. Caking. Cake. That is so wrong. That makes me want to kick something.
Must specific bands of the electromagnetic spectrum be associatied with the sexuality of an individual? Many females- females who identify as straight- don’t wear pink. The guy’s soccer team at my school has hot-pink t-shirts. Violently hot-pink. It says nothing about their sexuality. I know (not personally, in most cases) some of these guys, and I’m ninety nine point nine percent certain the soccer team is not making a statement about their sexualities. In gym class, I wear guy’s gym shorts because all the girl shorts in the store were either way too short or hot pink. And yet I identify as straight. I just happen to prefer some bands of the electromagnetic spectrum that are visible to the human eye than others, and maybe I don’t want to show too much of my legs during gym class. Sometimes there’s no correlation.
What do you have to say to that, Mr. Santorum?
I hung out with my friends the other day wearing a hot pink (like, blindingly hot) polo shirt. Half of them told me I looked like I should be golfing in that polo and half got out the sunglasses.
I swear, if he comes to Connecticut I’m going to show up wearing the pink shirt, a fedora, a necklace Selky made for me and skinny jeans.
Fedoras are cool.
I like my fedora.
It’s actually Selky’s fedora, but she’s got mine and I’ve got hers because hers is black and mine is sort of straw.
And y’know. Black hat. Hat Guy. So we swapped.
ALL OF MY CLOTHING.
Amd I’m rather proud of that necklace. It has your soul in it. I’m glad you like it. :3
The only reason I’m actually glad about this- and the N-word comment- is that I’m hoping it’s finally killed off his campaign. Seriously, though, that is just so WRONG .
Yeah except the kind of people who are still pushing for Santorum are ones who would be totally okay with both those comments.
Not even if we send him off it, to another one? (Like Seth Shostak proposed doing to Justin Bieber?)
Best to keep space free of Santorum. If intelligent life finds him he’ll be the representative for Earth and we do not want that.
“Hellooooo, aliens! Allow me to welcome you to the Moon. Once we get back to Earth, I’ll show you the country that I own! Have your credit cards ready, you’re going to need to change out of those pink suits – and I know a fabulous clothing store.”
And completely irrelevant, but the pink text said you were cute. I’m just agreeing, don’t mind me.
Like the sorcerer guy in The Road to El Dorado who sells everybody out to the conquistadors.
Now who said we’d be giving him a suit?
Valid point.
Maybe we ought to send him into Aperture Laboratories insteadThe other thing that really bugs me about this particular event is that I have already seen a good number of people attempting to justify him. “No, he was going to say something else”, and so on. If he meant to say something non-offensive he wouldn’t have cut himself off.
And then rambled off on a completely random tangent that he obviously made up on the spot.
As someone who’s completely ignorant about politics … why does everyone hate Santorum? What exactly did he do/say/advocate? *is a noob*
He’s compared homosexuality to both being black and having sexual relations with animals. He’s also criticized gay rights, told a small boy in a bowling alley that he couldn’t use a pink bowling ball while Santorum’s campaign team was filming him, got halfway through the n-bomb in reference to Obama (in the middle of a public speech) before he realized what he was saying and said that “He knows plenty of gay people that lived that lifestyle for a little while and left it” implying that being gay is a choice and that you can not be gay whenever you want. He’s against contraceptives and abortions, supports tax cuts for the wealthy. He wants to repeal Obamacare, reinstate Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and supports the Keystone pipeline.
He’s a very conservative Christian, which is just fine for life but doesn’t translate so well to politics when you’re trying to reach the masses and get elected. Also, I want to smack that little smirk off his face. He REALLY annoys me. Maybe it’s that he’s pretty much the poorest Republican candidate but is still a millionaire, maybe it’s that he’s 54 but he still looks 35, maybe it’s that he’s so convinced that everything he says is right, I don’t know, but I really dislike him.
(Also, Rainbow, don’t worry. I didn’t know anything about it until this year’s Republican candidates showed up, at which point I was so outraged at the discrimination that I hopped off my couch and read ALL the news.)
What I find infuriating is that Ron Paul is easily the least psychotic of this year’s Republican candidates, and as someone who will basically go with whichever candidate I like best rather than whichever party I side with, he would easily get my vote. However, since he’s also the candidate who’s most willing to speak about his true views on issues and refuses to change those views, no one’s voting for him. That just makes me mad; shouldn’t that be his greatest asset?
I know! I disagree with him on a lot of things but I really like him, both as a person and a candidate. He really stands by his opinions, and even though I don’t like his opinions I respect him for that. I’d rather have someone who was honest and making choices I disliked than dishonest and making choices I REALLY disliked. Like Santy Claus – er, Santorum.
…but Obama is still the best choice.
If you think about it, being gay is kind of like being black/any race. You’re born that way, and your sexuality/race doesn’t make you any different than other people, but prejudiced caketoppings discriminate against you until you eventually get equal rights.
… Although considering the rest of your post, he says both being gay and being black are bad? wut
And the pink bowling ball thing … I can’t decide whether to laugh or cry. GAY RIGHTS ARE BAD THEREFORE GUYS CANNOT LIKE THE COLOR PINK. *confused meme face*
Again to be fair, he didn’t actually relate it to gay rights, or any such subject. He simply said the kid couldn’t use a pink bowling ball on camera.
Although that probably was his motive, I just don’t like spreading misinformation. Also, don’t think I’m defending Santorum. I’m pretty sure he’s currently the worst candidate for president, and I have have yet to find many major topics I agree with him on. If I could vote, I’d probably vote Obama.
Did anyone see President Obama’s video today? You can watch it by searching “A message to Planned Parenthood Supporters from President Obama.” I really appreciated it, and hearing it directly from him instead of just “we are representing the office of the president and as such we stand for the views… etc etc.” So, slightly better feelings there, yay.
Rick Santorum is out of the presidential race! Woot!
Really? That’s great to hear!
*noisemakers*
Yes, in order to save face for a possible run next year.
Next year?
Maybe he really DOES need to go back to school…
Next election.
WHY CANT I HOLD ALL THESE TIME UNITS
Oops. I pied that, but I intended to squid it. Sorry.
I’m not actually surprised. Like Sarah Palin, he was there, made some really unpopular statements, and then poof! The only reason he got so much attention in the first place was because of that attention-mongering. Yes, there are Americans who hold those views, and support him, but not enough to carry him in the general election. But it makes good sensationalist news, so…
A (retired) Catholic bishop, Ignatius Wang, came to talk to our World Religions class today. It was quite interesting to hear him speak, though strangely in his answers to a lot of the questions he talked less about the Catholics and more about other, more general historical or societal ideas.
Apparently the Church never viewed Luther as a heretic (I asked) because his problems with the Catholic Church were only “systematic” and not “doctrinal”, though he did admit that most of Luther’s concerns were justified (and supposedly all fixed with the Council of Trent). He also said that Luther had only 25 Theses, but when we contested that and said it was 95 (because it is, isn’t it) he disagreed and said there weren’t that many.
Also, I may have ended up respectfully questioning the Church’s views on homosexuality. (I really wasn’t trying to confront those views, because everyone is entitled to their own thoughts, but I genuinely wanted to know why exactly they found homosexuality to be so abhorrent.) Apparently there are different categories of laws in the Bible according to the Catholics – some of them are “divine”, as dictated by God, and these can’t be changed; some are “human” law so they don’t need to be followed as they don’t apply to today’s society because of practicality, changing societies etc. I’m still not quite sure how exactly it’s determined which ones are which, but the laws against homosexuality supposedly qualify as divine laws, because homosexuality is “unnatural”. (Does anyone have more information about this? The bishop didn’t really clarify as well as I would have liked.)
Whatever “unnatural” is defined as, most of us probably execute many other “unnatural” actions in our daily lives. If people choose to think that homosexuality is a sin, though (and many do, I’m sure) then fine, it’s their own belief, but what I don’t really like is when religious institutions try to interfere with legislation and such to try and prevent homosexual marriage, for example, in everybody, despite many people not sharing the same belief. (Maybe this thinking is a side-effect of my increasing atheism – there, I said it – and questioning of religious beliefs?) Opinions are fine, opinions are great, but in my opinion (har har) when it becomes not okay is when they try to infringe on other people’s choices in their own lives. Within reason, though, because if someone chooses to commit murder that action then in turn drastically affects another’s life. But homosexuality isn’t exactly a disturbance to people’s lives, or something of which they should be living in fear. Thoughts? I await my opposition. (Long post, sorry. A brief update on the Random Thread turned into a Hot Topics-worthy post.)
My view on this issue, as a Protestant, has always been that sin is inherently forgiven when one accepts Jesus, yada-yada-yada. That means that regardless of whether homosexuality is a sin or not, when one simply does what it says to do in the book that raises the question in the first place, it doesn’t matter.
Is it, in fact, a sin? I don’t know. However, I do firmly believe that the previous paragraph holds no matter what.
I, personally, don’t think it’s unnatural. Homosexuality has been observed in humans for a very long time, and also in many other species.
And you know what, it doesn’t really matter to me. I love the world and I think that people should stop being stupid and accept humans for being decent and kind and not their preference in gender. But that’s not how it works, and as long as people continue to be cakefrostings to my friends and put them down for being “different” I’m going to stand up for those friends.
But for the sake of debate, I also think it’s a terrible idea for, say, Rick Santorum to show up and be like “Yup, I’m your president. And because I am Christian, and I want to return America to its ‘Christian roots’.” (oh, you mean the roots we left back in England because we didn’t want them any more?) “…and I am therefore going to pass laws that apply to MY beliefs so that the whole country can ENJOY them? Birth control? I DON’T THINK SO! Gay marriage? Being gay is a choice, so HELL NO.”
Can you tell I really hate the idea of a Christian president forcing his/her beliefs down my throat? Particularly Rick Santorum?
A while ago I was in class (I think there was a class discussion going on about something else) and somehow gay marriage (in general, not whether the Catholic Church should perform gay weddings or anything) came up. Someone said they didn’t have a problem with it and several agreed with them, then the teacher told us to get back on topic. And I’ve been even been able to talk about male-on-male slash with several people I know at my religious school. So there is hope… Although you’ve proably seen the statistics on the number of straight Catholic couples using contraception despite the official church postion, and suchlike.
The thing about divine law is interesting…
This has also made me wonder again why people who have a problem with homosexuality for non religious reasons care.
And yes, I agree that someone shouldn’t stop others making personal choices that don’t harm others because of religion or any other beliefs.
I was going to point out that there are of course individual Catholics who don’t oppose homosexuality, but Maths Lover did it better than I could, so I’ll move on to the other thing I wanted to say.
Many people seem to think that if something is an opinion, it’s automatically okay. It’s often used to silence criticism, and people usually just stop arguing when they hear “Well, it’s my opinion, and you’re not trying to say your opinion is better than mine, are you?”. I’m not saying that this is wrong, although I think it is. I am about to say that most people aren’t consistent about this idea, because in fact, there are quite a lot of opinions that society–and the vast majority of its members–strongly disapprove of. Maybe you’re different, and if so, I can’t criticize. Let’s check. For instance, if someone said it was their “opinion” that being born with dark hair was a sin, many people would find that unreasonable. If it was something historically contraversial but now almost universally denied, such as, “Having dark skin is a sin*,” people would not just feel contempt; they would feel anger. If you would be one of those people feeling anger or anything at all, then it is not consistent for you to say that it’s fine for other people to think homosexuality is a sin. If you are not, I don’t really have anything to say to you, although I disagree.
*For your information, I’m perfectly aware that no-one ever thought it was a sin. I worded it that way because that’s how people feel about homosexuality even though it’s no more of a choice than complexion.
I don’t at all agree with those people who think homosexuality is a sin, and to a certain degree I do feel bothered by it, but what I think I’m saying is that even if I were to disagree with them vehemently, it’s likely not going to change their own beliefs whether that’s caused by steadfast ignorance, religion or other influences. And as long as that opinion is not interfering with others’ lives and wellbeing – if those people don’t go around trying to discriminate against gays, for example – there is not as much point in actively pursuing an argument to try and change their views. I probably have opinions whose merit lots of others may question. The problem is distinguishing between opinions that are ‘universally’ disapproved of and therefore not all right to hold as you said, and opinions that still may be controversial but ‘allowed’ to be held.
Personally, if someone voiced their opinion that homosexuality is a sin or whatever and should be banned, I would definitely disagree, but in the case of the bishop who came the other day there is no way that I would have, in one conversation, changed his mind about something that he has had to believe for pretty much his whole life, as an important member of the Catholic Church and a sort of representative voice or spokesperson, if you will, of the Church’s views (at least, that is my understanding of the Catholic hierarchy).
I’m a Methodist Christian, which is a form of Protestant. But I have never believed that the Bible is infallible. And I honestly cannot see why homosexuality would be a sin. Sins, by definition, cause harm to another person or yourself, and homosexuality doesn’t. So while I try to respect other’s beliefs, I honestly find myself having trouble talking to some people that I know are pretty homophobic, for lack of a word that isn’t a misnomer. From my point of view, the sin is trying to force beliefs onto other people, which involves bullying, derogatory language, and infringement on rights, which I find disgusting.
Welp. Amendment one passed. I don’t even live in NC, nor do I have any current plans to, and I’m still so upset I’m crying.
I just can’t anymore. I hate people.
I was going to say “unbelievable” but it’s all too believable.
Don’t forget that hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians voted against the amendment.
My county voted almost 80% against, and my entire newsfeed is people posting about how ashamed and disappointed and disgusted they are. My school and town are wonderful and make it ever-so-slightly easier to deal with how very, very awful this is. I cried.
No. How did this…no, just no! Why?! I’m not American but I think this is both awfully sad and sadly awful.
Well, there goes any remainder of my vague idea that once a place allows gay marriage there is enough support compared to opposition for it to stay that way.
North Carolina never allowed it. In fact, it was already illegal there before last night’s vote.
Thereby making the amendment not only bigoted and homophobic and harmful to many NC families (including children of unmarried couples, unmarried seniors, victims of domestic abuse, etc.) but also completely pointless.
Good job, North Carolina.
I know. It stinks.
And of course I have to live here.
President Obama has officially endorsed gay marriage! Finally, some good news.
I was about to say that! The world is a brighter place.
Did he? Well, Vice President Biden did, too.
I… I’m sorry, but I don’t know what that is. Could someone please explain?
It made any type of marriage except one between a man and a women illegal, and also possibly other ramifications that I’m not as clear about/haven’t seen the evidence for myself
Isn’t that Amendment technically illegal according to the federal constitution? And if so, does that mean we can expect it to be repealed?
What makes you think it’s unconstitutional?
(By the way, about 30 other states have passed similar amendments. Wikipedia offers a List_of_U.S._state_constitutional_amendments_banning_same-sex_unions_by_type. At this point, states that allow same-sex marriage are a small minority. My own state, Virginia, is one of the most restrictive.)
There are precedents. California’s Proposition 8 got declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in February, so hopefully this kind of thing will get shot down too.
Not the Supreme Court — a District Court and panel, and the ruling has been suspended. Meanwhile, Proposition 8 remains in force. And North Carolina courts are likely to be less activist.
Oh, my bad
From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_North_Carolina
“The amendment bans not only same-sex marriage and civil unions, but could end the legal recognition of unmarried opposite-sex couples in domestic partnerships”
I recommend reading the footnote to the part of Wikipedia that I quoted — but not the comments on it.
muselover read the comments because he was curious.
I’m rather disturbed now.
Just to give an example for anyone else who’s curious, one supporter of the amendment said, “I have no apology, to you perverts, I care less if you like it or not.”
That…no.
Does anyone know how a fourteen-year-old could speak out against this amendment?
I think this does violate what is written in the constitution–even if only indirectly–because a lot of the people who gave their reasons of voting for Amendment One wanted to keep the laws as ones that would be ideal in God’s mind.
That is bringing the church into the government, which is a big no-no.
Or at least was.
With this stuff going on, I’m becoming ashamed of the groups I belong to. I don’t like being Christian as much because a lot of the conservative Christians hate gay people. I now don’t want to live in NC anymore because of the amendment.
And now presidential elections will be coming up in November…
I hate election years.
North Carolina is getting a lot of attention, but it’s far from the only state to do this. In fact, it was the last holdout in the South, as previous legislatures prevented similar measures from coming to a vote. Thirty states now have these laws in place, some broader in scope, and some more narrowly defined. Plus the federal Defense of Marriage Act is still in effect, though under challenge.
Bear in mind, too, that 40% still represents a substantial share of the population—far more than there would have been even a few years ago. Many Christian groups are among that number. Hundreds of clergy signed a statement opposing the amendment. Meanwhile, there are all sorts of equality organizations in the state, including some specifically for high school students, that are ramping up efforts towards repeal. I know that when you feel upset and disappointed it’s easy to paint the scene with a broad brush, but North Carolina’s people are as varied as its terrain. The population is a far cry from the hillbilly caricatures that are once again sweeping through the media.
Oh cake, I hope that I didn’t stereotype against anyone…I know about the lots of people who were against it that were Christian, but it just seemed the majority of voters for it were Christian as well. I guess it all depends on the church they go to. I am still upset and I am sorry if I insulted anyone.
I was actually pleasantly surprised to hear many people grumble in disappointment when my social studies teacher said it passed.
Hopefully our generation will get it repealed…
Don’t worry, Agent Hippie. I wasn’t criticizing you. I just felt bad that you, as well as some other MBers, were unhappy about living in North Carolina after Tuesday’s primary, so I wanted to remind you that one vote does not represent the full spectrum of what you can find here.
Unfortunately, not all of our generation is disappointed. People in my debate class were complaining today about the fact that President Obama had publicly endorsed gay marriage; when I pointed out that one doesn’t have to be a complete idiot to support gay marriage, the first response was, “Well, Obama is a complete idiot,” and when I said that regardless of whether he was or not (I didn’t want this to become a debate about him), a person’s support of gay marriage does not make someone a complete idiot, this person said, “Well, it’s extremely immoral.” When I informed him that as a supporter of gay marriage, I did not particularly appreciate being called ‘extremely immoral’, the boy who almost always shares my views on political matters asked what was going on because he’d only heard my comment, and upon explanation, he did have the sense to say, “So it’s extremely immoral to deprive people of their right to marry who they want to?” When the person who called supporting gay marriage ‘extremely immoral’ started to respond, someone on the other side of the room shouted, “I HATE GAY PEOPLE!” He was just saying it for attention, but of course it was an awful thing to say, and our teacher threatened to send him to the hall if he did something like that again. That definitely caused a lull in the conversation; I wanted to start it again, though. Unfortunately, I ended up talking not to the person who called it “extremely immoral” but someone extremely closed-minded in matters of religion–I don’t think he knows how to think about religion, really, or maybe he doesn’t want to. He’s the sort of Christian who doesn’t think it’s logical for there to be a god; he thinks he knows better than logic. He wrote a speech saying the Bible should be taught in public schools because it’s the students’ own beliefs and shouldn’t be kept from them; he also dismisses the fossil evidence for evolution by saying God put fossils on earth to fuel us. So of course, his only point was, “God intends attraction to be between a man and a woman,” and when I asked why he thought God cared about that, he kept saying, “Read the Bible,” and when I told him that I already did, he alternated between “Read it again” and jumping to conclusions from what I’ve said, like that I didn’t know why God created us”–where he got that from, I’ve no idea, unless he thinks men and women were literally created to be in relationships with each other, which aside from not even being what his holy book says is just scary because that basically means that anyone who isn’t ever attracted to someone of the opposite sex, including those who would be straight but die before reaching puberty, should never have been born (but he can’t be implying that, because he also thinks abortion is murder). Anyway, when he said, “Read the first paragraph of the Bible,” I recited it to him and noted that I hadn’t noticed anything there about who we should be attracted to; could he please explain what that has to do with it, he just indicated that he wanted to stop. It was… rather depressing.
Agreed. I’m not even annoyed by Christians against gay marriage; I’m annoyed by the ones who cannot provide a single adequate explanation as to why they are. As someone born to a Christian with a philosophy degree, I was taught from a fairly young age that I shouldn’t believe anything without a sufficient reason to do so, so the type of person you’re describing frustrates me to no end.
I’ve found it useful to consider the Biblical point of view when talking to Christians (like me, and this line of reasoning is what led me to my opinion on the subject) about gay marriage.
For instance, ask him why being gay is immoral, since the definition of immoral is that it harms other people, and since being gay harms no one, why would it be immoral? Also, consider the fact that most Christians ignore Leviticus and Deuteronomy, two of the books in the Bible that condemn gay marriage, because they say ridiculous things like not rounding your sideburns, not eating shellfish, marrying your rapist if you’re a virgin, etc, etc. The only times condemning gay marriage in the Bible are either in those books, or 1 guy who quotes those books.
Also note that the Bible says to love all, and last time I checked “all” includes gay people.
But when you throw the “The bible tells you/us to love everyone” at them they tend to throw the extremely tired “hate the sin, not the sinner” excuse at you. That’s really stupid, though, because you’re really saying that you don’t hate them, you just hate who they are.
Re: Amendment One:
Today I heard someone defend the amendment by saying that “it doesn’t stop gay people from marrying, they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex. So it’s really not taking away their rights.” Does this make anyone angry? Also, the kids on the bus I take to school all love stereotyping against gay people.
Guys! Regardless of your stance on gay marriage, stereotyping isn’t nice!
…I just wish I could say something to them. But I always keep quiet.
“Don’t worry, we’re not taking away your rights, you can still vote if you’re literate, not that we’re providing you with an education”
~Jim Crow Laws
Not a perfect analogy, but good enough. Gets my point across.
This article from the American Decency Association (pfft) made me laugh for a solid five minutes. I then spent another five staring at my hand and wondering if these people were actually serious. I realized they were. Faith in humanity: a little bit lower. I have emboldened the most interesting parts for you all.
_______
In a new Star Wars video game, it seems that ‘the dark side†is now winning in a battle for the hearts and mind of our children. Bioware, the company that developed the video game, Star Wars: The Old Republic, had firmly stated in 2009 that they would not bow to pressure from homosexual extremists who were demanding that gay and lesbian content be added to the video game then in development. Bioware claimed it was their policy to remain neutral.
Now Bioware has violated its own policy – as well as the values of millions of parents who don’t want their kids indoctrinated with pro-homosexual propaganda. Instead, Bioware has caved to a handful of vitriolic LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-Sexual, Transgender) protesters and is adding a special “same-sex romance†component to the video game.
In addition to siding with the LGBT protestors, the company has also removed more than 300 pages of comments – many of which expressed anger from parents that their kids would be exposed to such content.
This is because of their policy on remaining neutral. Imagine trying to respond to 300 pages of comments about how you were an awful company for including LGBT themes in your game.Florida Family Association exposed the LGBT pressure tactics used on Bioware – as well as Bioware’s decision to turn a deaf ear to those speaking out against this social engineering in a children’s game. Bioware is now deleting, banning, and censoring comments made on their website’s discussion forum from those expressing an opposing view regarding the inclusion of homosexual content in children’s video games.
As Florida Family has stated, American families grew up with the Star Wars film series that was family fare. The films contained no profanity, no nudity and no sexual situations.
WRONG! Remember Leia's slave girl outfit? And Jabba's dancers? And all of the Mos Eisley prostitutes, gamblers, drinkers, druggies and dealers? And the incest?It makes no sense that Bioware and Electronic Arts would shatter that family quality in Star Wars video games just to pacify 35 LGBT polling participants and appease radical homosexual extremists.
Star Wars video games are for children.
Star Wars: The Old Republic is rated Teen by the ESRB and 16+ by PEGI (Europe's rating system).An overwhelming percentage of the 1.7 million games sold are being used by children who do not need to be forced to see this propaganda.i don’t want to live on this planet anymore
Okay, the people writing this are acting like jerks, but…
Who’s making the games? Who’s creating the policy? And so who, ultimately, has any actual power in this situation?
That’s the wonderful thing about living in 2012 right now, I think; more and more, the people trying to tell people like me that we’re wrong and shouldn’t exist and don’t exist and are corrupting innocent children just by existing are the people with no power. They’re shrinking into a minority. Someday– maybe even someday soon– it will be considered taboo to speak publicly in a manner considered homophobic. It will be considered taboo to say homosexuality is against God’s plan, because the number of important people who actually believe that will be so, so small.
So I’m actually quite glad that I live on this planet at this moment, actually, because the curve of history is carrying me towards a brighter future, and it’s pretty awesome that I get to see it.
I have a friend who beta tested SW:TOR, and I know five or six people who play it regularly.
SW:TOR is NOT a children’s game. I’ve watched them play it for hours on end. It includes sex and violence that, regardless of your feelings on what children should be exposed to, are not made worse by whether the companion you’re trying to grind affection points with is the same or a differing gender than your player character.
If it contains things like you’re suggesting, I think that makes the article even worse, since it’s basically saying LGBT romance is even more inappropriate than that by focusing on it.
Oookay, so I’m debating the issue of building a wall along the Mexican-American border for my English final. This is my speech.
When faced with an issue such as building a wall along the Mexican-American border, we need to keep a clear head and consider this rationally. We must think back to how our country was formed, what it is now, and what we want it to be.
The United States of America was founded on the idea that everyone should have equality. This is echoed both in the Declaration of Independence, which states that all men are created equal, and the Pledge of Allegiance, which says, “Freedom and justice for all.†All, not just those who happen to have been born in the United States. Building a wall along the border of Mexico goes against these basic ideals and principles.
The United States today makes it very difficult for people to legally immigrate. The application process is long, tiresome, and expensive. A person might wait a decade before he or she is allowed to enter into the country. The cost of legal immigration is usually more than most residents of Mexico can afford.
The majority of the people who want to come into the United States want to come in because they want to make a better life for themselves. They want to work to make an honest living or send money back to their families. The United States has always been a place of opportunity. In the 1800s, thousands of immigrants from Europe and Asia came across the sea looking for a better life. Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free/The wretched refuse of your teeming shore/Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. The Statue of Liberty is a monument to welcome people into the country. Why have we suddenly stopped offering the opportunity for work to those who are looking to find better conditions for themselves or their families?
This work is not hindering the American economy or taking jobs from natives who need them. Studies done by the Fiscal Policy Institute in 2009 showed a strong correlation between economic growth in metropolitan areas and the amount of immigrants to come to the cities. The more immigrants that came, the more the economy of the city improved. Immigrants help our economy, not hurt it.
The reasons for this are fairly clear. The percent of immigrants that are working age is bigger than the percent of native-born citizens that are working age. The immigrant population is mostly labor force. This means that more of the labor force population is immigrants. Also, immigrants work in a lot of different jobs, from doctors to technical occupations. We want to promote economic growth, not demote it. In order to do this, we need to encourage immigration, not prevent it. Building a wall along the border of the country is not going to look like an act of immigration encouragement.
Speaking of the economy, this proposed wall will take up a lot of time, money, and resources. A similar wall constructed in Israel cost 2.2 million dollars per kilometer. The Mexican-American border is 3,169 kilometers long. The cost of such a wall, if it were the same as the one in Israel, would be 7 billion dollars. With the U.S. already trillions of dollars in debt, the cost of such a wall is ridiculous. This isn’t including the costs regarding the economy, the U.S. as a country, and the countless immigrants whose lives will be negatively affected. All sense and logic point away from this wall. The costs are simply too great.
We want our country to be diverse. We want it to be a place where freedom and a better life through hard work is offered to all. This is what the founding fathers had in mind when they created the moral guidelines of the United States. As we look ahead to the future of America, we must consider what we want our country to become. We must make it a place where people can be proud to live. We must make it a place that spreads freedom outside its borders. We must make it a place where opportunities are offered and the right to work is not oppressed.
To achieve this goal, we must think long and hard. We need to fix our immigration system and make it easier for foreign people to enter the country. This will not be an easy process. However, the rewards of this will be massive. The economy, the diversity of the U.S., and the lives of many illegal immigrants will become better. We will have to strive for this goal. The first step in this is to oppose this proposal of building a wall along the Mexican-American border. Our country will become a stronger nation for it.
Opinions on the issue? Or opinions on the speech? Or on immigration in general?
The main comment that comes to my mind is distinguishing between illegal and legal immigration. Do your statistics from the Fiscal Policy Institute include illegal immigrants or mostly focus on those who are here legally? Also, do you know anything about whether such walls, perhaps those in Israel, are even effective at deterring illegal immigration? If there not, or only marginally more effective than whatever we have now, that would be another point for you. Good speech, though; I like your structure and allusions.