Hot Topics, v. 2009.1
For topics that need to be handled with extra care. NO FLAMING.
Continued from version 2008.
Date: January 20, 2009
Categories: Ideas, Life, The Universe
Friday, 29 March 2024
Life, the universe, pies, hot-pink bunnies, world domination, and everything
For topics that need to be handled with extra care. NO FLAMING.
Continued from version 2008.
Date: January 20, 2009
Categories: Ideas, Life, The Universe
(The new thread must have been created when I was typing, so here’s my response to Cliff from the other thread)
Cliff (409): I really don’t know much about Mary (it’s something I’ve been meaning to read about, but never get around to actually doing). I saw a sign a few days ago with a picture of Mary and a caption that said “Abstinence: 99.98% effective,” which I thought was really funny. It seemed like it would fit when I posted it, but now I realize that it was rather pointless…so, sorry about that. I do know that virgin birth like what is written in the Bible is impossible, according to modern science today, etc. I personally don’t believe it happened, but I think that people who do believe it happened are justified in their beliefs; they believe what happened in the Bible was a miracle from God (not positive about this–Christians, correct me if I’m wrong), and therefore was possible. I don’t personally believe in God (I’m atheist, so please don’t say you already know what I’m going to say about Saint Salome–who I had previously not known about, and had to look up just now), but I have no problem with people who do.
Robert’s post (412) from the last thread is awesome. It helps clear a whole lot of things up. I like it when GAPAs post things like that. They’re always so logical, sincere, and packed with facts. They’re like a warm blanket on a cold day or something.
I feel all warm and fuzzy now. I think I’ll stop in the H+H!
[rant] I agree with 411 from the last thread. (Purple Panda) Abstinence-only sex-ed is not the way to go. Especially those purity rings, or whatever they’re called. It seems to me that the point of giving those out to all the students who have gone through sex-ed attaches a social stigma to not wearing one. Now, if all the students who weren’t having sex wore them, and all the students who were didn’t then that would achieve the point of the program. But a lot of the time, people who do have sex wear them anyway, so that they won’t be ostracized. Also, what if someone just doesn’t want to wear it? Then en will automatically be thought badly of, regardless of their relationship status. Thank God, my school didn’t do anything like that (especially since those programs are primarily Christian, and I went to a Jewish day school) but if they had, I would have refused to wear one of those rings on principle. [/rant]
410- (Zallie, Last Thread) Yes, but what about rape? If someone is impregnated while being raped, should they have to bear the baby? Isn’t is fair to give them the right to choose whether or not they want to have a child? Having a child unwillingly can really wreck a person’s life!
Wowsers. I’ve actually never been here before.
409) How did the blind man suddenly see? How did Jesus rise again? It’s a miracle! God willed it. I mean, I don’t know of any other way to describe it. God can do anything and since he willed it, it happened. You say it’s ridiculous but I don’t think so. It’s what I believe. I suppose that it takes a lot of trust in things like that to be a Christian and I can understand that it can seem unbelievable. I believe that, as God’s son, Jesus needed to be pure and therefore he needed to be born without sin.
4) I agree with you. I think everyone should have the freedom to chose what they want, which makes me angry at the religions that prohibit abortion.
5) Lets abstain from the Christian stuff. I think I believe in god, but I think I lost it on the Jesus part. And as for god willing all that stuff: Give me one good reason to believe it.
As weird as this may sound, I’m christian.
404- (from last Hot Topics) Not at all! I’m just trying to make up a song parody that takes into account the fact that G.W.B. made some not-so-awesome choices.
5) Okey day! I shall refrain from discussing that topic further!
.4 – Mmm, I’m not sure why you’re telling me this. Nothing in my post suggests that I would force a woman who was raped to carry her child to term. I just stated that abstinence is 100% effective, except in terms of rape. I really don’t think rape counts, seeing as the woman still abstained from choosing sex.
6. – I’m not sure why you object to others discussing Christianity. If you don’t like it, you are welcome to add your opinion, or simply ignore the topic whenever it is mentioned.
5- Well, i’ve been thinking about the whole sex-is-horrible thing. We all know sex = babies = humans = continuation of the human race. How can religions condemn sex if it’s the basis of life? It all seems rather stupid to me.
409 – Well, you honestly cannot say something like that and expect people not to disagree with you/get mad at you. You cannot condemn a religion. That’s just wrong.
10 – I don’t think they’re condemning sex so much as they condemn premarital sex. There’s a difference.
10) I don’t think Christianity condemns sex. I mean, it happens frequently enough in the Bible. In fact, I strongly believe that the bonding between a couple is sacred! I think more that to be a virgin is to be pure, in a way.
11- Everywhere I go, the same people are always dogging after me with their “get off Museblog” posts. If you had actually read the post, Kokonilly, you would have found that I was only asking for the logic behind virgin birth and was not condemning anything. And I got my answer, and although I don’t agree with them, I understand how Christians justify virgin birth, the raising of Saint Lazarus, and water into wine. I got my answer and I’m not getting into arguments with them. I could have written a post saying how all their evidence is disproven, or criticized Christianity for its many faults, but I am being civil and before you start treating me like I’m the most offensive person of all time, I advise you to read the damn post! Don’t make judgements on things you know nothing about.
Zallie you asked me: Which is better: lots of sex-ed or lots of unwanted children?
As much as I think that Sex ed is important in my area we don’t need it in 5th grade. Other than the puberty stuff they don’t have to go any farther. And then maybe in seventh, a very small intro in what happens. And then in eight grade (and I’m pushing it in my mind) should stuff like absinance and STD’s be stuck into place.
Of course everyones about to point out that the media is too perverted to do that and kids will learn it anyways. Um… I don’t have an argument for that. I guess… I guess that whomever (is is whom?) was about to point that out is right and I wish that you weren’t. Some kids aren’t effected by the media though and don’t get the stuff that other kids get and I guess I’m onea those.
13 – I never told you to get off MuseBlog. I’m just saying. And please stop getting worked up over nothing. It was my misunderstanding and I apologize.
Just an annoying observation, but shouldn’t the link in post 0 say 2008 instead of 2009?
[Yep, and now it does. –Admin.]
There’s something I wish I could say, but it would be offensive and cause much flaming. I guess I have to keep it inside my head.
4, 6, whomever else has that opinion- All I can say is that God works in mysterious ways. Anything that happens does so for a reason, and who are we to question His motives?
16-Who are we? We’re curious, inquisitive people, and we like to question things!
16- Go ahead and say it. I will stay out of this one and i’m probably the highest producer of flame wars here (not sumthin to be proud of)
17- Who are we… that’s a good Philociphy Question. In a few moments I will attempt to revive that thread but meanwhile will add somthing to this thread.
16- Now don’t be offended. But did you ever want to know more than that. And I guess this goes for everyone too. Are you really content to look at things and say “Yup, that’s God”? Don’t you want an explanation with a face, or at least and equation?
17- Correction: We like to question things and use big words while doing it. Hey it’s fun. And can I take a sappy moment to say that even though I’ve never met anyone from the Blog, anyone who visits ranks among the smartest people I know? Seriously, if I have a question I can always take it here and it helps that people actually read the assignments in school, instead of frequenting Sparknotes and the like.
13) *hugs* We love you Cliff Eagle! No one is giving you “get off MB posts”. Please don’t get your feathers in a tussle! (feathers! *giggle*)
14) I think that Sex Ed. is extremely important. And 5th grade, in my opinion, is as good a time as any to give it out. I mean, most students know about it anyway, but for the few who don’t, it’s better to tell them about before they go to Middle School, because that’s when the major puberty stuff starts. Trust me, better to learn from a caring school nurse then from…… erm……. other sources…….sources that wouldn’t exactly be….. yeah….. you know what I mean……
16) I my opinion, there’s a difference between recognizing what is God’s will and living your life. That’s like the man sinking in quick-sand and telling his potential rescuer to leave him to die because it’s God’s will that he should die.
We had Sex Ed in fourth grade, which I think was a great idea. Our area is obsessed with acting like people from some crappy dramatic TV show where everyone acts all “bad”, so everyone’s always threatening to beat someone up (no one ever does) and everyone’s always talking about sex. The only thing anyone actually does here is drugs.
Wow. I went here, ran a search on ‘gaza’ and ‘israel’ and got no matches. So what do you think about ’em?
19- That’s the beauty of faith. Believing isn’t necessarily seeing. However, it can be explained logically. I just haven’t had any interest to do so. Maybe I will in the seminary.
18- I’m not going to, because it isn’t anything having to do with discussion.
Another way to look at it is this. God is the giver of life, right? (I’m speaking to those of us who think that, so please don’t come in and argue for argument’s sake.) Right. So God has the right to give us life, right? Right. So, logically, he has the right to take away life, right? It was his in the first place, so he has every right to take it away again. So taking away life is a right of God. However, we humans have decided that we also have this right. But does that really make sense? We cannot give life to things, so why do we insist on taking what is not ours? Everyone deserves a chance. There are a ton of stories about how “I with I didn’t have that abortion”, but how many stories are there about “I wish I’d had one”?
Think about it.
.14 (Yoda) – Fifth grade is when a lot of people begin puberty, so that’s when sex-ed starts become relevant. I had sex-ed every year (in varying degrees, of course) from 4th-10th grade. Whether or not you are starting to think about sex, there are probably some classmates of yours who are. Personally, I’d rather my child was told about condoms a year too early than too late. Of course, I’d probably tell my children on my own, anyway, but a lot of children aren’t getting the sex-ed they need from their parents, so they have to get it from school. I’m sorry it’s making you feel uncomfortable, but you will really appreciate it some day!
ALSO – I wish everyone would stop complaining about flaming. This is a thread about Hot Topics; if you can’t handle heated discussions, you should probably go back to the random thread or something. I think dissenting viewpoints are pretty important to having discussions, so we should probably stop attacking those who do not agree with us.
23 – The conversation on that topic can be found on the previous thread.
24- I think there are plenty of “I wish I’d had an abortion” stories. Maybe they’re not as publicly shown and broadcasted as “I wish I hadn’t had an abortion” stories, but I’m sure there are people whom, at some points, have felt regret over not having an abortion.
.24 – I think humans can create life, though: why else do we sometimes refer to sex as “making babies.” If we don’t don’t give life (and genetic material!) to our own children, I don’t know who does…
24 – I think that humans can definitely create life. Not to sound all poetic or anything, but the ability of humans to create a new spark of life and bring it into the world is far greater than anything else.
Plus, just thinking rationally here, if you are going to say God is creating that life, doesn’t that mean God is taking it away also (in the case of an abortion)?
29- Are you implying that abortion is what God wants?
28- We don’t actually “create” life; we only put the parts in position, and it starts “by itself”, if you want to speak in the secular sense. Or, in the sacred sense, nothing we can do can infuse a soul into a human body.
Why is it that all hot topics have to do with religion?
30- Well, maybe it is what S/He wants. After all, many people on the Religions thread said that God had planned out all of life happens for a reason. This is why, they said, God did not stop the Holocaust. Therefore, aren’t the abortions people have part of God’s ultimate plan? Maybe God WANTS people to break his/her rules, ’cause it’s all part of the big plan!
30- I think that if a defenseless 12 year old was raped, God wouldn’t want the poor child to go through the emotional and physical burden of raising a child. Abortion is necessary in some cases, but its not like I think people should get them if they do not absolutely need them. Besides, if abortion is banned, people will always just kill their babies some other vile and murderous way, like sticking them in a microwave or using a coathanger or throwing them in the trash.
30 – Is that an answer?
I personally think God doesn’t make judgements, but is simply a spiritual force or being beyond our comprehension that runs the universe. So no, I’m not implying what God wants.
Most of these have to do with religion simply because all of us have different beliefs — religion is a very personal thing. And, it is human nature to make others think you’re right.
Having said that, I think we shouldn’t try to argue about religion, because everyone is right and everyone is wrong, and no one thinks like you do.
. 5 — To someone who does not share your faith, “God willed it.” is an absolutely ridiculous statement. I don’t think that blind faith (or “trust”) is a virtue — I feel that it’s a cop-out of thinking. And sin — anything that indulges oneself is automatically classified as a sin.
11 —
Paragraph 1: How is it any more wrong to condemn a religion than to condemn a political party or a belief in faeries/Saint Nick/Thor/[anything else that everyone knows doesn’t exist]?
Paragraph 2: In the Bible it is said that one should aspire to abstinence. Marriage is for if you’re unable to do that. Disgusting, really.
16 — Please, go ahead with saying it. I’m interested, and want to respond.
Also, why the hell don’t we have the right to question this thing’s motives? Why are we any less important than your god, if it truly is a loving god?
24
Re:19 — That is what pisses me off to no end about faith. It’s such a cop-out. “I don’t have any reason to believe in a god except that I’ve been told since I grew up that there is one.” You were told that there’s a fat man in a red suit who flies around distributing presents around the Winter Solstice, as well. But no sane person would believe that. That’s why faith is so ugly.
Also, “I just haven’t had any interest to do so.” That is not going to help your case. At. All. That’s just going to piss everyone off.
Big paragraph: Alright, fine. So someone who believes that shouldn’t get an abortion. But you have no right to force that view on everyone else. Separation of Church and State, much?
30
Re: 29 — Perhaps s/he is. Is that unacceptable?
Re: 28 — …I don’t know how to respond. I’m a great fan of linguistical arguments. However, this is not the right topic of conversation for that.
Re: question — Because religion is such a prevalent in everyone’s life (for better or for worse) that it can always be discussed, and because it’s very engaging?
32 — No, if this god hadn’t wanted her to have a child she wouldn’t have been raped! That’s the whole point of religion!
So, I hope that I made sense and don’t get snipped. And I’ll hang around here, I suppose, and post again if I feel it to be necessary. Which it could well be.
[from R&R]:
“93. The Bookworm & Lurline
92- I’m just curious- Is there anyone on the blog who doesn’t think gay marriage should be legalized?
94. ♫ Agrrrfishi {Aggie}♫
93- I don’t. Why?
96. The Bookworm & Lurline
94- Just curious. Why don’t you think it should be legalized?
97. Piggy
93- I’m in the same boat as Aggie. For me, it’s religious reasons.
98. Cliff Eagle
93. Me.
99. Axa
yo can you guys take that to hot topics…not that I don’t want to discuss but that’s not really what this thread’s for.
100. Tigerlily
93- Me.”
Does anyone want to talk about this?
35- uh. I’d really like to have the same right to get married as the rest of you if I happened to fall in love with a woman. I mean, I suppose I could fall in love with a man (I’m bi) but I’d like to have the same access to shared insurance, hospital visits, etc. either way. It just makes sense. I want to be able to legally share my life with whomever, is that so much to ask?
I think it should be legalized because there is no good reason not to!
32) I agree. I recall my Dad talking about how it was when abortion was illegal when he was younger. Desperate women and girls would go to back street butcher shops or other illegal areas to get abortions, often in unclean and dangerous environments. Often times, the women would be permanently damaged or even killed.
I saw Invisible Children on Wednesday, and it was the most moving documentary ever. Before the school year is out, I want to start a chain of signs to get the government doing something about Joseph Cony.
Re: Gay marriage- You know my views. I’m for it. I see no good reason against it. If I fell in love with a man, I wouldn’t want people voting on whether I could legally be attached to him as his husband.
What do people think about D.C. statehood or other state-like entity?
I have a very strong opinion about gay marriage. I think it should absolutely be accepted, because, really, why should you discriminate? As Beavo said, if two people are in love, who are you to deny their right to be married?
34 (Glasseh)- I don’t think that faith is ugly, necessarily. It’s only bad if you try to force it on someone else.
41-I’m opposed to it’s statehood. Sure, it’s people should be able to vote and whatever, but the reason why D.C. exists is to be a capital/capitol (sorry I forget), not to be living space. Or a state.
Yeah, my area is so opposed to gay marriage. Or anything gay. “Gays are icky”.
Apparently, my outfit today was “gay” and “girly”, which is supposed to offend me. Because clothes totally determins whether I like penis or not.
35 (Purple Panda)- Well, yeah. I”m not sure I like the idea of gay marriage even though I’m bi myself, but people should have their rights.
41, 44–I don’t think it should be a state. I mean, to me it’s a city, the capital of the nation, to make it a state would just be…..weird. I mean, the people who live there should certainly have the same rights as all other citizens of the US, same representation, whatever. Actually, I’ve not ever really put much thought into it…..I’ve always rather thought of it as a city, that “belongs” to a state, same as any other city, but……obviously that was the naive misconceptions of a kid….
So, I don’t really think they should have “true” statehood, but to me they are as much a part of the US as the other 50 states, more than just a territory (such as Puerto Rico), so they should have equivalent rights and representation (such as senate representation), or else we are kinda saying that they’re not as important as the rest of us, which is stupid–they’re our bloody capital.
45. How is that? I mean, I understand heterosexuals not agreeing with the legalization of gay marriage. Understand, but don’t agree. But it seems, I don’t know, odd for someone who is bi to feel that way. Not trying to bash your opinion, just honestly curious as to why you feel that way.
31- The last thing God wants it for people to murder infants, and I’m somewhat offended for your suggesting that.
45-I’m curious too. Even if I was completely straight, I’d still have no problem with gay marriage. What’s your view?
25(zallie) I supose so. Everyone at my school says I’m so naive anyways.
32(cliff eagle) Really good point. Just because abortions are banned doesn’t mean they stop.
35- Gay marrige is as much our choice as regular marrige. Just with the same gender instead of the opposite. Really, I don’t see ANY difference. And becuase ya’ll belive in God so much: if god didn’t intend people to love eachother no matter the gender he wouldn’t have allowed Gay people. But for the non-religous people: it’s a choice. If it effected the people around them badly then I would say maybe reconsider. And when you think about it, peoples discrimination agaist gay people is as bad as racisim. Discrimination is discrimination and people have a right to choose.
41- As much as I love D.C., no. I don’t think it should be a state. It’s the capitol and the state would have too much leverage if it was made a state. Plus a lot of important people from other countires come to D.C. and that would also give it leverage in a way. We all try and say everything will be fair with checks and balances but corruption will always be lurking.
But we have 600,000 people who only have a non-voting member of the house!
We also have a territory with more people the Kansas, but It’s even worse then D.C., since it can’t even vote for the president.
Here is what I demand:
The Ten Points of the Human Rights Party (HRP) Per Area
At the Local, State, and National Level we believe:
That there should be no discrimination based on sex
That there should be no discrimination based on religion (motto change)
That there should be no discrimination based on ability
That there should be no discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender status (Transgender)
That there should be a universal heath care system
That there should be a universal preschool system
That there should be a universal k-12 education standard
That there should be many different ways a public school can work
That a women has the right to choose what she does with her body
That The Minimum wage should be higher
At the social level we feel:
That the space program should get more funding
That the District of Columbia should have congressional representation
That We must let all citizens vote, from guam to maine
That The Intellectual Property system need to be fixed
That the Bureau of Indian Affairs should be split off from the DOI
That there needs to be more national parks
That there needs to be more Smithsonian Museums
That the National Archives should be put online
That We need to switch to Meter
That we need to Invest in alternative energy
We also Believe (Less impotent):
That veterans need better rights
That Youth need the right to vote
That town and city wide curfew is unconstitutional
That Tibet should be a independent nation or other free state
That we need a cap and trade system
That we need universal broadband
That the library system needs improvement
Columbus Day must become Discovery Day
That Immigration should become easier
That gitmo should be closed Done by President Obama on 1/22/09. Replaced with #11
Repeal the patriot act.
51–That’s funny. DC has as many people as my home state. (Or perhaps I should say my state has as few people as DC…..) Actually, what really cracks me up, is Rhode Island, the smallest state, has way more people than Alaska, and we’re the biggest state….
5- sex isn’t sin. It’s how the human race continues to thrive.
14- I think it is a good idea to have children aware of the risks and whatnot at a youngish age because then they know beofre hand what they can get into. Just because they aren’t having sex in gr.5 doesn’t mean they shouldn’t know about it.
30- It can give answers where there are none.
32- I think most people who chose to have an abortion have seriously thought about it. I mean, ya don’t do it just for kicks. It’s a hard choice to make. You don’t wake up one day and say “I’m gonna have an abortion.” That is my argument as to why it should be legal.
41- I have no idea what that means.
52- That’s funny, of course it’s all about climate.
MLDM (45): What about it makes you unsure?
Piggy (97 from R&R): Do you think religion should be able to determine whether gay marriage is legal?
I’ve never understood why gay marriage is such an issue. Sure, there are many religious views against it, but we’re not a theocracy. I’ve yet to hear any argument that makes sense.
51/52-D. C. does have a high enough population to deserve representation. I don’t know about statehood. When people think of D. C., I think many think of it as something different than any normal city or state, despite the large population. I guess the idea of it as a national city, not just another state, is the issue. But I see why the residents would want some representation. I won’t deny them that, since I’m not there to experience life without representation and thus can’t logically say I wouldn’t mind living without it. After all, it’s not like D. C. citizens get to go into the Oval Office whenever they want to let the President know their opinions and suggestions!
48-Does God approve of rape?
43-I’m inclined to agree. I don’t mind if people hold views apart from my own. I also feel the world would be bland if nobody had different opinions. But I think everyone should respect other people’s opinions and not try to force their beliefs as correct. Maybe there isn’t right and wrong, because people are very different and so develop different views.
53–oh, I don’t know. The climate really isn’t that bad in Alaska. Ok, maybe in parts (I don’t think I would want to live in Barrow, with over a month of solid darkness), but certainly not all. South east Alaska is, I believe, actually fairly warm, with a climate probably fairly similar to that of Oregon/Washington. Sure, we can have rather harsh winters, but…..they’re really not that bad, and no worse than much (most, perhaps) of Canada, and many northern states.
No Taxation Without Representation!
I think D.C. does get a vote or two for president, but they have no other high ranking official. So here’s my suggestion: Don’t tax D.C.!
That’s what happens in Rome, no? Or did happen, I’m sure.
Gay marriage: I’m very curious as to why people oppose the legalization of it. I can see some don’t approve because their religion is against it, but surely they value separation of church and state?
48- This just comes back to “How do you know what God wants?”
51- Agree, but not with the youth vote. I don’t trust the youth with voting. Then again, people don’t seem to really mature much after age 16 or so.
Also (unrelated), I think organ donation should be the norm, unless it is expressly denied by the individual in their lifetime.
I’m curious as to what one would prescribe as punishment for a would be an illegal abortion. If you consider it murder, it seems the woman would be sentenced to life in prison or execution, correct?
58- I’m against capital punishment, but I believe abortion is murder, so it would seem as if punishment was in order.
As for everyone questioning my opinion of the separation of church and state, let me remind you that religions influence opinions, and opinions votes. There are no direct connections; any philosophy or religion guides a democracy through voting. There is no way to completely separate the two, and it would be unconstitutional to attempt to do so.
I just needed to reply to some of this. It doesn’t mean I’m coming back to this thread.
Gay marriage: It’s my religious belief not to promote gay marriage. Gay marriage is a really unstable topic for me, because I kno people who are gay and I have friends that are gay. It’s really awkward to discuss peole’s futures like that, as if we can decide for them, even though I don’t have to acceot what they’re doing. It’s fine for them to be in love with the same sex and get married or whatever else they want to do, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
57- “Thou shalt not kill.” One of the Ten Commandments. Even if some of us don’t consider abortion to be murder, the Church does, which means God does.
58- If that were true, then a million or so women would probably already be behind bars. No, sadly the world doesn’t seem to want to stop abortions,legal or illegal, as much as they want them to continue.
P.S. Sorry for the mild flames licking up in there. You can see why I left. Back to the novel!
60-“the Church does, which means God does.”
But what if the Church misinterprets what God says? God isn’t going to talk to them (no record of that in years, unless you count the Book of Mormon), so how do we know which interpretation of God’s rules is the one condoned by God? And if God has everything planned, out, then doesn’t God want everything to go as it does? If God makes no interventions, then doesn’t that mean that everything is going the way God wants it to go? Then maybe God wants all the murders to happen. Maybe God wants people to break his /her rules, because that’s how s/he intended things to work out. Maybe we shouldn’t listen to God’s rules, because maybe God created some of us with the intention we wouldn’t listen or believe. So we can do whatever we want, because God intended that to be what we did!
59, 60- But it’s my religion’s view that if you want to get married, you can get married. If there were a homosexual couple who wanted to get married, my dad will marry them. why should your religion come over my religion?
63- It shouldn’t. The government is supposed to have a laissez faire additude towards all religons…
59,60 – Neither of you are answering my question. What would the punishment for an illegal abortion be?
65- Well, first of all, if the woman is at all moral and has a conscience, then she would likely have a lifelong guilt for her wrongdoings. That would be a terrible punishment in itself. Secondly, God would punish her by ending her to purgatory for an act against him if she was unrelenting. Lastly, she would probably have to have some sort of federal punishment: manslaughter, maybe? Murder? Either way, killing a human child in a way that is unlawful both to the country and to God should definetly be punished.
P.S. Did you get this from that article on WordPress? Because you can find my answer there, too.
66- I just don’t understand what the punishment would be. I don’t mean personal punishment, I know that an abortion is a highly emotional experience to say the very least. But if you don’t support capital punishment, what then? Imprisonment? It would be considered voluntary manslaughter, correct? So I am asking you what the government would do with a woman who has an abortion, not God, not the woman herself.
I saw the question on a community on lj. I am curious. I don’t mean to bully you if it sounds that way. But if anyone is serous about banning abortion and reversing Roe vs Wade then I would like an equally serious explanation of how the law would be enforced and what the punishment would be.
I never thought about the punishment for illigal abortion. Since it’d probably be condisdered murder (I do)… wow.
I wouldn’t make it illigal though. As much as I disagree with it, it’s none of my business to go poking in other people’s personal lives. That’s why I support gay marriage. This is a country of choice. Life, liberty, hapiness. The government has as little right to force a rape victim (or anyone else, for that matter) to have a child they cannot support and don’t want as to ban two loving individuals from marrying. It might be against my beliefs, but this country isn’t a theocracy. It’s their right. In a strange, twisted way, I can see abortion as self defense. An unwanted baby can really hurt you (physically and emotionally).
And economically.
Obama has repelled the Gag rule.
.50 – Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that you are naive! I think a lot of people are uncomfortable talking about sex/sex-ed, so you’re not alone.
I feel like we JUST did the abortion debate, but anyway:
For those of you who oppose gay marriage and/or abortion for religious reasons, why do you think that is justification for the prohibition of these rights/privileges? You have no proof that God even exists (I know you believe in him, but little children also believe in the Easter Bunny, do they not?), so how does that make you qualified to decide that God does not want a woman to get an abortion, or want two men to get married?
I’m also a mildly religious person (birth-right Quaker), but I don’t see how Christianity is justification for allowing/not allowing certain rights and privileges to be legal. America is not a Christian nation, so why should whether or not God ‘approves’ make such an impact on our laws?
58) THe punishment would most likely not go to the mother, but to the doctor who performed the abortion. Just a guess though, I could be wrong……
60) I can understand. However, I think that it should still be allowed, they have a right to marry whoever they choose. And. also, I look at it as just a sin, like any other. I think that God looks at all sins the same, so that being gay is just like any other sin that a person will commit every day. I mean, if we don’t totally condemn a person for lying or something else like that, then we shouldn’t condemn a person for being gay either. I know so many nice people who are gay, it just never has seemed like a big deal to me.
Cheese News guys! I just read a fascinating article! Due to the problems with the economy lately, sales of imported cheeses have dropped! Families have stopped buying expensive foreign cheeses, to buy more practical cheeses made in the United States! This has increased sales of native cheeses! Prices are also dropping, cheese-wise, due to the lowering cost of milk. Due to this, cheese prices have reached a record low.
68- Me either. I guess the punishment would depend on the parameters of any law/ruling that forbids abortion.
I personally am all for LGBT rights. They should be allowed to do anything anyone else can. It’s like modern segregaation- back during racial segregation, most perople thought nothing of it unless they were the ones being segregated. It’s the same thing here. Seriously, if you think about it, they’re identical.
But at the same time, I’m against abortion (and euthanasia). So that puts me somewhere in the middle of most political arguments.
72–I don’t know…..I’m not really sure that euthanasia is a bad thing. I mean, for instance, a braindead individual, someone in a permanently vegetative state. That is, someone who is technically alive, but is unable to survive without the help of machines. It is legal for doctors to unhook said individual from whatever device is keeping en alive.
For instance (drawing from a case not that long ago recently mentioned in bioethics) Terry Schiavo (sp?). Her heart was beating on its own, and she was breathing, but all her other functions no longer existed. She would never regain consciousness. It was decided (I can’t remember if it was the husband or parents) that it was futile and pointless to continue keeping her alive in such a state. Thus, the doctor “pulled the plug”, took her off whatever was keeping her alive.
In other words, she starved to death–a long slow death from malnutrition, because she couldn’t feed herself–she was braindead. Therefore, for all intent and purposes, the doctor killed her. (I mean, if this was a conscious person, and someone deprived them of food, they would certainly be charged with murder, or some such degree there of). I don’t see how this is ok, but if the doctor ahd instead injected her with a drug (such as fatal plus or euthasol–two drugs used in animal euthanasia), causing instantaneous, completely painless death (assuming she could still feel pain), it would ahve been a felony.
To me, it seems much more humane to allow the doctor to give a fatal injection taking such a person’s live quickly and painlessly, instead of a long drawn out death, that perhaps isn’t painful for the individual, as they are in a vegetative state, but is sure as heck painful for any loved ones.
I mean, I’m not entirely sure I see why the same “rules” that apply to animal euthanasia can’t be applied to human. Typically, an animal (I’m talking pets, here) is euthanized udner the following: it’s old, as in very old, and keeping it alive is just putting it through one more day of torture (cancer–although, some people do give there dogs chemo…..really; advanced kidney failure–no dialysis machines for dogs & cats yet; other things); it’s child/people/animal aggressive (parallel: our criminals–the very bad ones, not just thiefs, but murderers, child molesters, and others who sure as hell don’t deserve a nice comfy life in prision)
If a person is, as I mentioned previously, in a vegetative state/braindead, and the doctor is going to disconnect them from ventilators, or whatever is keeping them alive, cauisng a drawn out death, it would be much more humane on all involved to give a fatal injection instead.
If a person is dying a very painful death from cancer or some other disease, and is going to die anyway, it is just a matter of whether they die now, painlessly, or endure months of agony before dying, I see no reason why that person shouldn’t be allowed to choose death, and not be forced to shoot themselves, jump of a building, slit their wrists, or hope they take enough pills, to end their life. I’m not saying in this case that the doctor should do the actual injection (I’m not sure if I were a human doctor I could bring myself to do that–animals, I can handle, people, no). But they should be able to go into the doctor who can put in a cather and connect the syring, and then hand it over to the person who can inject it.
Also, I seem to remember hearing/reading about some disease that babies can be born with, that if this occurs, as it means no chance of survival, the doctors literally withhold care from the child (presumably with parental consent), letting it starve to death. Seriously, if I didn’t just dream this, wh ich I don’t think I did, I certainly think euthanasia is a much better option for all involved, including the baby.
Again, I don’t think I personally would be able to do this, I can’t see myself taking anothe rhumans life, but the individual is dying regardless–why should they ahve to suffer, instead of dying quickly and painlessly?
We do it for other animals, animals who can’t even say that they would rather die then live another day in agony. Why not do it for those of our own species?
71- but where does it stop? if the woman confided in anyone, would they be implicated as assisting in murder? would they be tried as accomplices? does our court system really have the funds to deal with the increased volume of cases coming through?
And what of the prisons, where would we put all these would be criminals? Unless of course they are to be tried as murderers, in which case I expect our rate of executions would go up significantly.
72- No one is for abortion. I am not FOR abortion. I would prefer people owned up to their situation, were responsible, realized that there is no just them in the world. But you can’t put everyone under an umbrella like that…there are so many things particular to an individual’s life.
As Voltaire said in a letter: “Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.”
I’m going to post a question and then contradict myself.
What if we just made the practice of teaching how to do abortions illegal?
Anybody ever seen Dirty Dancing?
56- well, yes, I see where you’re coming from. Keep in mind, however, that you have lived there all your life. To many people Alaska seems a very cold place. I dislike being in Winnipeg in the winter months and that is no where near as far north as Alaska. I live in a rather southern region of Canada and have a moderate dislike of the cold.
60- ah yes, but an eye for an eye and the world goes blind.
76–true. I guess that probably does make a difference. and come to hink of it, although our winters (depending on the part of the state, obviously) might not be that much colder than some northern states, they are longer…..
77 (Luna)- For a week or so this winter it was colder (with windchill) in Chicago than it was in Alaska. We were Not Amused.
75 (greekgurl)- I think that would be even worse than banning the abortions themselves. 1. There will still be a lot of doctors in the US that know how to perform legal abortions, unless the government knows something about mind-wiping that I don’t; 2. even if we don’t take them into account, there are still going to be women who want abortions, and are going to go to unsafe means to get them. And, if abortion is legal but abortion training isn’t, there will be no “incentive” (in quotes because I don’t think the legal status of abortion is going to stop the truly desperate) for them not to get one. Unsafely.
Outlawing abortion doesn’t make sense to me. You can’t say it’s God’s will, because we’re a secular country without established religion (this isn’t exactly the same thing as separation of church and state, but it can be extrapolated to that) and the (often ambiguous) will of one particular interpretation of the Christian God shouldn’t apply to the body of a Buddhist or atheist woman. Saying otherwise gives one denomination of Christianity higher legal status than other religions, which is establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.
But enough about abortion. We do this every thread, and it’s always the same arguments from pretty much the same people. Let’s talk about something new. Let’s talk about CHINA.
(post debunking myths about the Chinese government coming soon, when it isn’t almost three in the morning.)
66 (Aggie) – Actually, if you die without repenting and confessing any mortal sin, you are sent to Hell. You go to Purgatory if you have only unconfessed venial sins.
68 (Beavo) – Yes. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What was that first one again? Life? Oh, you mean that thing that abortion destroys. It thus follows that the government, supporting everyone’s most basic rights, has to stop abortion, because it takes away the most intrinsic thing anyone could ever have.
70 (Zallie) – Have you any proof against God’s existence? And many extremely intelligent people have indeed proven that there has to be a God. The universe couldn’t exist without one.
73 (Luna) – That’s a bit different. “Unplugging” someone is fine if there is no chance of their recovery. Everyone has the responsibility of keeping people alive to a point, but that sort of thing is beyond our moral duty. However, assisted suicide, as in if someone is battling cancer but wants to kill themselves, is not moral. Cancer can be defeated, and is everyday. Giving up is an insult to God. It basically says that the person thinks God has abandoned them and cannot possibly save them.
What does everyone think about failed abortions, if an abortion is conducted but the baby is born alive anyway. Obama has voted numerous times to ban doctors from providing health care to these children. The baby has already been born, but he’s trying to force doctors to let the baby starve to death. And of course, there’s partial-birth abortions, tax dollars paying for abortions, and a disgusting lack of time limits in which an abortion can be done. In fact, the government has not defined exactly what an abortion is. Is it in the first trimester? The second? Any time during pregnancy? It’s even more general than that. Under current definitions, it can be argued that a baby can be born normally, after nine months, and then killed, and called an “abortion”. If we keep this definition, than a mother could murder her child at any age and plead “abortion”. Under this, Casey Anthony was just aborting her child.
74 (Axa) – If you think abortion should be allowed, you support abortion. It’s just as if you support voting or freedom of speech. If you think it should be allowed, then you support it. You can deny that fact all you want, but it’s the truth.
78 (Pentane) – Let’s not change the subject to China just yet. We’re in the middle of a conversation.
Everyone who supports abortion – It’s not a matter of religion. It doesn’t have to be a matter of “what God wants”. It’s about the most basic of human rights: life. Modern science has proven beyond any hint of a doubt that a fetus is a living human with unique DNA, facial features, habits, and brain waves. After 10 weeks, the fetus could be taken out of the womb and it could survive on the outside world. You can’t just say, “Well, it would die without its mother.” A two-year-old would die without it mother, but is it a human? Obviously. Just because it can’t yet speak for itself doesn’t mean it isn’t human. It feels pain. It recognizes its mother’s voice. It smiles and sucks its thumb. It is a human being, and no one has the right to destroy it, its future, and its potential.
I apologize to the GAPAs for this rather long post.
P.S.- The order of my comments in this post have nothing to do with any underlying messages. If I thought of something, I typed it. The paragraph about Obama’s policies after my response to Luna has nothing to do with her post. It just came to my mind.
Let the responses begin!
I apologize for the double post, especially after that last one, but could I direct anyone interested to a website? It’s a TV ad concerning abortion, the first of several, I believe. Their website is www . catholicvote . org , but without the spaces. Or maybe search for “imagine spot 1” on Youtube. More to come; I may send those along as they are released.
79- at ten weeks. or 3 months. the end of the first tri. but what about two weeks in, when people get abortions? Hmmm?
China:
Free Tibet!
Free East Turkmenistan!
Free Inner Mongolia!
Free Tiwain!
Give the ROC the mainland back!
70- I didn’t mean you thought I was naive, just my school friends/not really friends think I am.
73- You made some good points. I feel the same, if someone is dieing, like truley going to die, not even a slight chance of living, they should be allowed to choose if they wish to just die then and there through and injection instead of drawing it out. Same with the vegetative state, if the only think keeping them alive is a tube and a plug and a family member decides it’s over then it shouldn’t take a week or two for it to truly be over.
On China: I was in D.C. about I think a month ago. I guess the Chinaesse pres was in town. So there was this huge gorup of Chinaesse (sp?) people welcomeing him. And a huge group of Tibetan people protesting him. It was interesting to look at and think about. Although, I could have identified the flags wrong.
78–I can believe it. Was it by any chance just a week or so ago in January, when we were having 40 above weather and the midwest (dunno about Illinois) was having below freezing, if not subzero weather? Of course, I’m sure there have been other times, as well. I know there have been plenty of times since my sister started college in the lower 48, that it ahs been colder where she is, then back home in AK, but nobody ever believes her. (That is, nobody at her school believes it is warmer in AK then it is there at the time).
79–Giving up is an insult to God. It basically says that the person thinks God has abandoned them and cannot possibly save them. That’s your view as a religious individual. I, however, have serious doubts as to whether there really is a god, and I strongly believe that even if their is, he DOESN’T CARE about saving anyone from death. I mean, if there were truly an all loving god, then there would not be so many horrible things going on in this world. He would not allow for the murder of innocent people, the rape of women and children, and all the otehr atrocities that occur daily throughout the world.
Additionally, yes, people can battle cancer and survive. I was not meaning that everybody who is diagnosed with cancer should just say right then, “I don’t want to fight this, let me die.” However, if the patient is terminal, if there is NO CHANCE of recovery, I see no reason that they can be allowed to die then, instead of livingn a few months longer in excrutiating pain.
Piggy (78): re: abortion-I don’t think abortion is murder, and is not infringing on any rights. Illegal abortion, however, does take away a basic right. re: assisted suicide- Yes, what Luna said—what about terminal cancer? Sure, cancer can be defeated. However, there are many different levels of cancer. If someone is terminally ill with cancer, he/she has no chance of survival, and would be suffering for the last few months until death. Surely you can understand why one would want to just end the suffering right away? Also, there are people, like my mother, whose cancer will never go away—they’ll be on some level of chemotherapy for the rest of their lives, until the cancer eventually overwhelms their system and they die. What if the person doesn’t believe in God?
Luna (83): A few weeks ago it was colder in Pittsburgh than some part of Antarctica. Granted, it’s summer in Antarctica, but still.
83- I’ve said your God point before, but apparently God has a super-secret masterplan that involves millions of innocents dying! If God really is like that, I’d like to slap him in the face! He seems like a psychopath.
85- But His plan ISN’T a secret! That’s the beautiful part! The truth is that he loves us and wants us to spread His word on earth so that his sons and daughters can be gathered back to Him, and then, the good and worty will join him in everlasting life in Heaven! That’s why people try to convert others, becaue hey love themand don’twant to see them go to Hell and/or Purgatory! And, even if you did jut insult him, if you only ask it of him, he will forgive you.
86- That sound surprisingly cult like.
82 – Chinaesse? Do you mean Chinese?
81- If it’s not a human being, what is it? Are you saying age influences “level of humanity”, for lack of a better term? If that’s true, is an 80-year-old more human than a 10-year-old?
87- Hey! I’m very offended by that. Just because you don’t agree with a religion, you don’t have to insult its beliefs. I know you want to flame, but please don’t do so any more. First we start calling each other members of cults, next we start swearing, and next people are being banned. I’m not trying to be “high and mighty” or “holier-than-thou” or anything like that. Just stop insulting people. You really should know better. Would you like me to call UCC a bizarre cult? Of course not. Please don’t do the same to others.
*grumble*
I’m leaving. When people begin insulting others and their beliefs, I don’t want anything to do with it.
Good bye, and good riddance.
.79 – Piggy – No, I have no proof against God’s existence either, which is precisely my point. Why should a religion (which may or may not be truth) have any effect on our laws and government? \
Also, please provide me with this ‘proof’ that ‘intelligent people’ have come up with of God’s existence. I’d really like to see it, because, as far as I know, there’s no proof one way or another.
87- It does. . “I’m the god of love peace and hope but if you piss me off I send you to a place where you suffer for all eternity.”
I call for separation of church and state. Views on this?
89- It’s a lump of cells.
I’m sorry! I said It sounded like a cult. I forgot the part! PLEASE STAY!
79 – Wait, two-year-olds can’t speak?
86- But, from all the accounts of Him, he doesn’t seem very nice. He also seems very unlikely to exist. I just don’t think he’s real.
Assuming you’re all US citizens, and that you’re aware of the fact that religion/church is, legally, supposed to be quite removed/separated from matters of state, and that morality is subjective, would you be able to make a case for/against abortion, treating it purely as a human rights issue/issue of legality? With reasons (social or scientific) specifically cited?
96- Either it’s a women’s right to choose or it’s murder.
90-I know one person who tried, and a lot of people thought was right.
Anselm said:
God is that entity than which nothing greater can be conceived.
It is greater to be necessary than not.
God must be necessary.
God necessarily exists.
The problem is in the first line. That definition of God has no possible bearing on anything. So I guess that doesn’t work. It’s pretty much impossible to prove that God does or does not exist (or that 1=2).
SFTDP
96-Not all morality is subjective. Our society and all humans believe that part of morality is not harming other people needlessly, which is what our society and government are built around.
79– I support the right, not necessarily the act. I think abortions are horrible, and everyone agrees in that I assume. But it’s not my place to tell someone what they can or cannot do. Nor is it the government’s.
We’ve all pretty much said on piece on this haven’t we? It’s true the arguments on both sides are generally the same each time.
I have still not been given an answer for what the punishment would be.
But we are all cemented in our beliefs on this topic so we might as well drop it for now. It’ll come up again in due time.
Know that I respect your views even if I don’t always agree with them. That goes for everyone.
92– it is already separate, or it should be
93- I’m not going to. And, if a fetus is “just a lump of cells”, then what’s an adult human? Just that. To be honest, the main reason I’m leaving is that this is just bringing back bad memories.
*sigh*
I didn’t realize exactly what Fridgey was like when he was still on MB.
Gah, why am I so depressed today?
I personally believe that abortion is a terrible, terrible thing. However, I feel that if a law was passed to ban it, people would resort to worse ways of killing their babies than choosing abortion. So I am against it morally but for it legislatively because killing a baby when it can barely feel anything (again, this is debatable) is much better than sticking it in the microwave when it is a fully functioning human being. We should move on to a new topic, because abortion is one of those topics where everyone is rooted in their own beliefs and the thread doesn’t budge one bit. So I think we should be talking about a question I have to ask.
What do you guys think defines a terrorist?
102- Someone who causes fear by committing acts of violence.
.I just read Freaknomics which was an alright read, I suppose, but the subject matter was pretty interesting. One of the most intriguing sections dealt with abortion and crime rates and what the author (Steven Levitt) said is essentially this:
Roe v. Wade (in which abortions were legalized across the US) was responsible for the dramatic crime drop across the US in the mid 1990’s.
It sounds absurd, but studies of other countries (Australia, for one) show this to be quite true. Before Roe v. Wade (1973), the women who could not afford illegal, safe abortions were the young, poor, single mothers with a low level of education whose children, statistically speaking, are more likely to lead a life of crime (or, to become young, poor, single mothers themselves). But, because of Roe v. Wade, the mothers had access to cheap, safe abortions and were able to choose when/where they wanted to have their children. This meant that by the 1990s, there was a relative lack of teenagers and young adults from ‘high-risk’ backgrounds (low income, low education households) who were likely to turn to lives of crime, which in turn caused the dramatic downturn of crime rates across the US.
Some of the factors/qualities which are present in children who test well on standardized tests (not a measure of potential, by any means, but high test scores often mean that a child will recieve a higher education degree, which I think we all can agree is an important factor in success):
-the child has highly educated parents
-the child’s parents have high socioeconomic status
-the child’s mother was 30 or older at the time of birth (NOTE: if the mother’s second child is born when she is 30 or older, the correlation is NOT present)
That’s not to say that a child who doesn’t have these factors working for them will not be successful, but I think it’s fairly strong evidence for the legality of abortions. Even if abortions were illegal, the wealthier Americans would still be able to have abortions on the black market or in Canada, so the only people who would be hurt by this law would be the poorer mothers, who are most likely to have children who
a) do not test well/do well in school (which affects the rest of their lives) and/or
b) turn to a life of crime.
I don’t support abortions, but I do support a woman’s right to choose. If a woman chooses an abortion, I trust that she has a very good reason, because it can’t be an easy decision to make.
I’ve dropped from this conversation because it’s taken off without me, but I’d like to repost Axa’s comment from 67:
As Voltaire said in a letter: “Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.â€
Someone (Piggy?) misunderstood this, and it is very important.
79: (70) That’s just plain wrong.
82: The Chinese flag is simple, red with a few gold stars. The Tibetan flag is complex, with a yellow border, red and blue sun rays, and a detailed drawing of dragons. Also, I think you’d like to try the web browser Firefox, as it has a spell check.
104: There is a very strong correlation between woman’s education/rights and birthrates also. So it creates a positive feedback loop. Which is very good.
.105 (Vendaval) – Re: Birthrates – Absolutely. The more educated a woman is, the more likely she is to go about making educated decisions about her own body, which includes not having a child when she is not in a situation to support it. This sounds obvious, but it apparently isn’t!
Also, about 70/79, which part is ‘plain wrong.’
98 (Cromwell) – That doesn’t make any sense to me, sorry.
104- yes, I read that too. However, the point he makes at the end on the value of fetus : newborn is also important. I assume most of the people who oppose the right to choose also have a 1:1 or 0.5:1 valuing idealogy!
87-I know you were trying to make a joke, but please don’t say things like that. It’s very offensive.
89- No, don’t go! Please, stay! You have great views!
105- I agree. Education is the key to less abortion.
Piggy! Don’t leave! Everyone’s veiws are important.
As a note to everyone: Think about what you are typeing. If there is even the slightest probability that it could be veiwed as mean don’t say it.
94- Depends on the two-year old. Some can speak in single words “Cookie” others can speak in very bad grammered sentances “I want Cookie” others better “I want the cookie” while others not at all.
102- Oooo. I like that question. Because technicaly the Son’s of Liberty in the Bosten Tea Party were comiting acts of terrosim
but are regarded as hero’s in todays socioty.
104- Also, teen mothers are more likely to give birth to future teen mothers. Did you mention that? If you did, uh, sorry.
105- I actualy looked the flags up. I didn’t recognize them worng. And I know, my spelling is atrocious but my parents say we shall stick with Internet Explorer. I’ll try harder to slow down my fingers and spell check for errors.
108- Its not a joke, and I don’t care if its offensive if its true.
Your parents are stupid. IE is the worst browser.
.107 – I thought that was interesting too, but I don’t really think it’s very realistic to place a numerical value on fetuses and infants. Most abortions occur during the zygote stage anyway, not the fetus stage.
106- Ah, no, sorry, the numbering was a bad way to shorthand. I was trying to say that Piggy’s response (in 79) to your post (70) was wrong. Because there is no way to prove any of this.
109- Ah, sorry you’re stuck with IE.
110- If you will be offensive and uncivil, your validity will correspondingly degrade. TMFA was surprised at how close that statement sounded to being cult-like (whatever that means), which means that he does not think Aggie’s church is cult-like.
110 – Please don’t get too mean. Seriously, we want to AVOID flaming here, not cause it.
Cheese. I think this thread is very interesting.
102) I think that a terrorist could be anyone who openly supports the spread of terror through violence.
111-*shrug* yeah I know
110- . Flamer!
What I meant was the way she put it, so that his sons and daughters can be gathered back to Him, was rather UFO cultish. Not that I thought it was a cult. Can we get over this? I’m sorry!
78-But some people don’t count the baby as life. How developed do you have to be to be “alive”?
I’m curious, this isn’t cynical. What would you suggest for young mothers who would have had an abortion (because of rape or otherwise) and can’t support the child? Should they be taken into immidiate care by orphanage? Should she keep it and have to deal? Should the new father have to stay with the mother and help support the child? Would there be any punishment for her if she DID have an illigal abortion?
Re: Assisted suicide- It is technically murder, but is it any better to have someone waste away on a hospital bed causing their loved ones pain and less importantly but just as looming, hospital bills? I don’t think plug pulling is very nice either, so the best thing possible would be assisted suicide, with the consent of the closest relative.
100-Well, yes, it is the government’s job to tell you what and what not to do, but I see what you’re saying.
Some random factoids to chew on, as the abortion debate still seems to be going on. I learned these this morning (was it really just this morning?) in bioethics. Seems an eternity ago (and 8 o;clock is a really crappy time slot for something that the teacher expects some intelligent thought during).
In the US, there are 1.3 million abortions each year (20-25% of all pregnancies [in the US, I believe] )
30,000 of these are in the case of rape or incest
He kinda dismissed my suggestion of a third time when abortion could be considered “acceptable” (I forget what word he was using), which was that of when the pregnancy endangered the mother, as he apparently hadn’t really heard this used in a debate, and didn’t know if it was common, or how many occured each year for this reason. Seemed a stupid reason to almost completely dismiss it. Just because he hadn’t thought of it…..
Of course, as he told us to think about: If it were made law that only thnose women whose child was the product of rape or incest were allowed abortions, what do you think would happen? How could you verify/whatever their stories?
I mean, as we sorta talked aobut, women who wanted an abortion for whatever reason, could just go in, and say “I was raped” and get an abortion. And of course, the doctors would have to report the rape to the police, and then what? Would the woman be vague and not try and blame anyone, or would she accuse a real person. And even if she were vague, it wouldn’t be the first time someone was arrested for a crime they didn’t commit.
And, yeah, anyway, I know. We’ve sort of exhausted the abortion debate fifty million times over……
I’m against abortion, but I think it should be legalized. It’s the mother’s choice, after all.
91- But that’s not the message. It’s like a father with his children. He loves them immensely, but he sets rules. If they break those rules, then he has to punish them to make them into better people, who grow up to be good adults. Just because he punishes them when they break the rules doesn’t mean that he doesn’t love them. He still loves them just as much, and it makes him sad to have to punish them, but he does it because it’s the best thing for them, not because he wants to make them suffer.
I’m pro-choice, but I myself would never have an abortion. I’m too unsure of my own views on when life begins. I don’t think that it begins at conception, but that’s all I’m decided on.
121-Not really. That’s a fairly recent idea. In ashre, it says “and evildoers he destroys. That’s a repeating theme in the whole tanakh.
118- When you raised the point of “Should the new father have to stay with the mother and help support the child?” I instantly thought of Genua under Lily Weatherwax in the Discworld Novel “Witches Abroad.” In Genua, everything is forced to go by fairytale standards, for example a toymaker is killed because he doesn’t whistle and tell stories to children. Making the father stay with the parents, or making the mother have the child, is taking away the parent’s rights and free will. And then, maybe all families would have to have a mother, a father, a boy, and a girl. And from there onto “The Giver”… No one wants that to be the future!
124- Just kinda going against what I belive here but: What would be wrong with the life of The Giver. If you don’t have the freedome of todays socioty then there isn’t any real crimes. No one gets hurt by others. No population problems, eco-friendly lives, eqaul rights, no chance of being turned down because of your background.
125-In the Giver, there were no “worries”, but no one’s life mattered because no one had free will. What’s the point of equal rights if you can’t do anything with them? In America we have free will (for the most part) and each life is valuable.
And, in the Giver, everyone is white. No diversity. Babies are killed and so are the Old. How is that RIGHT?
126- What is right? Does it have to make any sense? Not to you existentialists, I suppose. (Just emphasizing my argument on the religions thread. Carry on).
Utopia, like Communism, will never work because it doesn’t take into account the general drives of humans to make money and to establish social standings.
128-No, not without forcing the people into equality (i. e. what the soviet union tried to do, although it didn’t do a very good job at it) or keeping the populace oblivious (i. e. the giver.)
128- There is a drive to establish a social standing, but money is not always the currency of success. Americans are generally money driven, other cultures can be different.
correct.
.128 – I disagree. I think communism is a very attainable goal, for the right type of country. Definitely not the US, but it could be done (and will be, I think).
I believe that communism is, because of human nature, bound to always become corrupt.
Similarly, a true utopia is impossible. Everyone has a different idea of what a perfect world is, and they can’t overlap enough for a utopia to please more than a few people.
Even if conceivably a utopia were created, human nature and its inherent drive for power would prevent peace, equality, and other elements of a utopia from lasting very long.
An excellent short story is The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas. It’s a little disturbing, but not enough so that you shouldn’t read it. Delinkified version: harelbarzilai .org/words/ omelas.txt
The problem with communism is that it puts most of the power into the hands of a few governing officials. If there’s a lesson that history has taught us, it’s that power corrupts. Rulers may start out with good intentions, but they–or their successors–always end up rotten. Also, there’s the problem of people not being able to move up in society, no matter how hard they work…
Communism would only work if…
A. The leaders were honest, perfect people who everybody loved. (Since nobody’s perfect, you’d have to silence any opposition and make yourself look like a divine, incorruptible figure. You’d also have to control the media to prevent them from spreading dirt about you…)
B. Everyone were happy to work hard for no personal gain. (Maybe if you were a super-charitable person, you would…but most people aren’t super-charitable, and most people will realize that no matter how hard they work, they will still be payed as much as the slackers. That’s why I’m against free health care…who would want to devote their lives to the study of medicine, and then end up getting low government pay? Becoming a good doctor isn’t as easy as becoming a good garbage truck driver (no offense to you garbage truck drivers out there)).
All of you should read Looking Backward. It’s an interesting book about communism and utopia.
Let’s discuss the fictitious utopias authors have created. Here’s a list:
The Giver
Looking Backward
Homecoming
The Ones who Walk Away from Omelas
Any more?
(134) Actually, giving power to a few governing officials was quite the reverse of Marx’s vision. Communism was imagined as ushering in a classless society of common ownership, not a totalitarian regime. You can still argue that such a system doesn’t adequately account for human nature, but a critique should be aimed at the correct target.
I would also point out that many people study medicine for its own sake and probably wish they didn’t have to think about it in terms of earning a living. That’s equally true in any number of fields. Those who are motivated for the intrinsic rewards may not be the majority, but they certainly exist, and in fairly substantial numbers. Without money as primary motive, I suspect it would be much easier to find people who wanted to be doctors than to find fast-food workers.
136 – Oh, I have a lot more. We did a unit on utopias in 6th grade. Harrison Bergeron (instruct. westvalley .edu/lafave/hb. html) and The Veldt (www .veddma. com/veddma/Veldt. htm) are two more that I remember.
Like writers and scientists.
Most artists are not “in it for the money.”
But what if, say, a man took over and created his utopia, after a while people would become used to the ideas around them. They wouldn’t think it was such a bad thing. I think that some of your veiws are just warped because we all know what free will feels like, and leting go of it would be too hard.
We are re-reading The Giver right now in English and a whole bunch of short stories about Utopia and soceties. Basically someones utopia might seem like a seriously messed-up soceity to someone else. Try to read the short story The Lottery. They only do it because thats what they’ve always done and its tradition for them. At first the ideas in utopias may seem messed-up but after a while it becomes somewhat like customs and traditions and makes sense to the people living in them. Isn’t there a book called Utopia?
Yes, the word “Utopia” comes from a book by the same name (about an imaginary place by the same name) by Sir Thomas More.
143-I was actually being prompted to read that by my dad, I might now in the light of the Giver discussion here, and reading the Giver in language arts.
133-That’s why a Utopia woud be bad, because to have a true Utopia everyone would have to aggree on what the idea of a perfect world is, which would imply that they had lived without most of the choices and excitement (that comes with danger) in the real world, and that they had really been brainwashed into thinking that the world they live in is “perfect”.
The word ‘utopia’ comes from Greek, it literally means “not place.”
Yes, I believe the only way for everyone to be truly satisfied with a utopia is brainwashing. It might seem like a utopia to those living in it, but that’s only because being used to something makes it difficult to see its flaws. People would have to be forced into the utopia in the first place in order for them to be brainwashed anyway, and the following unhappiness goes against the very definition of a utopia.
136-wouldn’t that be more suited to the books and reading thread? I would agree with 144.
146-So what is brainwashing? Everything we know has been told or influenced by what others say.
1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.
These apply to only after say-8, 10, 12, somewhere around there. So then whatever comes before isn’t brainwashing.
144(Beavo) Okay then, say it wasn’t a Utopia, it was an extreamly structured socioty like the communities in the Giver. Is it wrong for people to have that little freedom if they are contented with teh non-freedome that they have?
the giver kinda depressed me that the author didn’t actually come out and say what happened to jonas(maybe?) and gabe. i mean did they actually find a safe place or did jonas just die and hallucinate?of course i have not read the other two books so i might be missing something. if you have please, no spoilers!
149-the society in the giver is utopian
a utopia is a place where all possible steps are taken to eliminate pain
150- Technically, the most efficient and permanent way to eliminate all pain would be to kill everything. I don’t think that fits anyone’s definition of utopia.
151 – Actually, that’s very true.
But, generally, utopias try to avoid that.
Why should a utopia have to be unimaginative, monotonous, and coercive? How about a utopia with enough variety to appeal to a wide range of different tastes? Or one that people are free to leave if they don’t like it?
151- Well, um, yeah!
153- Maybe that sort of utopia would become so free and allowing that at some point people took it for granted and it no longer was regarded that way. The people got so used to the idea it was no longer what it was meant to be.
A perfect society is not only impossible, it is not natural. Human suffering is natural and necessary, and it’s how life is supposed to go. Our goal is not to create a perfect society, in fact that should be the opposite of our goal. Rather, our goal is to create a fair society that is competent and effective enough, and allows people to live how the choose.
Of course, the most fundamental goal for people is to overcome challenges. And so it is our dream to eliminate suffering and all the bad stuff out there. But that only has resulted in more suffering. It’s no use to go against nature, we must simply survive, have a good enough life, and pass the world on to our children.
Just a comment. Anyway, this is totally off topic, so if you don’t want to start a new conversation just ignore me:
I’m doing a paper for school about the Pledge of Allegiance and the whole “under God” debate. Opinions?
155 – We’re actually studying it right now. I think it doesn’t matter. I mean, God is completely overused in society as it is, and has now evolved into not really meaning God, but just a word. You know?
Yes. Or, in a more slower but more humane version of that, stop reproducing. I believe there is an organization that wishes the human race would voluntarily become extinct.
So if I were to design a utopia, I would create a place (an island with little outside influence. Or maybe just tight borders.) run by a socialist government. Citizens would vote actively, once a month, in a community setting (maintaining secret ballot though). Religion would be banned, but the state would endorse a set of vague but true beliefs. Hurm.
Re: under God
I think it should be taken out. It does not belong there, and I can see no reason why it should remain.
At my school, nobody actually says the pledge. Is this common elsewhere?
Utopia sounds boring. I like dystopia better.
-revels in chaos-
Re: “under God”:
Separation of Church and State, remember? But I don’t say the Pledge of Allegiance, so I really don’t care at all.
No God in schools or on money! Jesus said something about not making a spectacle on prayer.
I heard a funny quote from Ned Flanders about the bible while watching the Simpsons.
“Why me, Lord? Where have I gone wrong? I’ve always been nice to people! I don’t drink or dance or swear! I’ve even kept kosher, just to be on the safe side. I’ve done everything the Bible says; even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!”
153-There would be something that someone likes that someone else wouldn’t, which would ruin the whole point of a “perfect world”. For perfection, everyone has to agree, and for everyone to agree, they’re probably brainwashed.
Re: Under God- I don’t say it. I don’t think it should be in there. In fact, I almost always ruin the pledge.
“*silence until “america* Asparagus! *silence until Under God* Under [insert random person, i.e. Shanaynay, Gerard Way, Chuck Norris…etc.], with Liberty and Justice for Hardworking White People.
Almost every day, except the days I feel patriotic (never).
I think that the phrase shouldn’t be in the pledge because of Separation of Church and State (which is hypocritical as a phrase–it should be Separation of Religion and State). We do say the pledge at my school, but not everyone has to stand up and say it.
.162 – I think that’s a bit disrespectful. If you don’t want to say it, then you don’t have to, but mocking what America stands for is really not a classy thing to do.
158 – In my school, everybody says the Pledge. If you don’t, then you stand out. That’s how it has always been for me.
I don’t say the Pledge, but to avoid getting picked on, I stand up but just mumble something. I don’t like the ‘under God’, but I have the right to say it and I shall exercise it.
re: pledge of allegiance. I dunno, to be honest, I’m not sure I really care whether the “under god” stays in or not. I don’t believe in god, but our founding fathers did, and it’s been in the pledge for a heck of a long time. Does this make it right? No, but it does mean that it would be hard to convince people it’s wrong.
When I actually went to public school (K, first, and second), we all said the pledge every morning, but then in the middle of second I was pulled out to homeschool, and my sister and my initial desire to follow the routine of real school (ie, saying the pledge), quickly dwindled, as we became more accustomed to our new schooling.
That said, at public events I’ve been to in recent years, I have always, in at least one spot, forgotten the words, and skipped a clause or two, and ended up saying the wrong things at the wrong time, as Ir eally don’t have it memorized anymore…..
The pledge is recited over the announcements every morning, but nobody says it. In some classes the teacher stands up and says it, but I can’t think of a single student who I’ve seen say it. If I do say it, I usually leave out the “under God” part.
Luna (166): I don’t think the “under God” part was added until the 1950s, which wasn’t really that long ago.
The rest of the Pledge is just a little more than a hundred years old. Did you know that it was written by an editor at a children’s magazine? It has an interesting history, well worth finding out about.
167– Hm, no, that wouldn’t have been all that long ago. Yup, just googled it: 1954, by president Eisenhower. I stand (sit) corrected. I’m beginning to rethink my neutral opinion on it. I don’t appreciate people in general trying to force their opinions onto me, and I don’t appreciate the government trying to force me to pledge allegiance to a god that, assuming he even exists, I strongly believe to be a sadistic, cruel entity.
168- It was by a minister, and He really didn’t want God in the pledge. Under God and In god we trust were added and made the motto in 1954 to show that we, unlike the commies, were religious. I hate Under god.
Do we have any muslims on here? do you say under god or under Allah during the pledge?
(170) As I understand it, Muslims have no problem with using the word “God” when speaking English. God is the English translation of the Arabic word “Allah.” (They do consider Arabic special, as the language of the Qur’an, and many feel that the Qur’an should not be translated.)
The United States Department of the Treasury provides an interesting fact sheet about the history of the motto “In God We Trust”:
www . treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html . And Wikipedia does the same for the “under God” part of the pledge: en . wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance.
Factoid: the sermon that persuaded President Eisenhower to change the Pledge of Allegiance was preached in the same church where Kokonventioneers held their concert in August 2007.
What do people think about what’s going on up north? I’m talking about the fact that Canada’s government is close to collapsing.
The only two problems I have with Under God is
1. That wasn’t the way the pledge was written. Under God was added during the whole Communism hysteria as a way to differentiate us from the Soviet Union.
2. Young kids are pretty much forced to say the pledge. They legally don’t have to because they have a right to free speech, but they do because everyone else does it. So these kids, who are maybe being raised Buddhist or Atheist or Humanist or Hindu, are pledging themselves to God. And they do this hundreds of times a year. They have been taught how to pray, from the first day of first grade, in a public school in a country whose First Amendment states that government must have no part in religion. Something’s not quite right about that.
173 – Well, we’re not exactly FORCED. Our teachers always say that we don’t have to say the Pledge.
172- truly and honestly I don’t think it’s going to collapse. Stephen Harper is a very smart man, even if he isn’t so popular.
173- wait- you americans pray in school? I was unaware of this….
175- Not really a prayer. Well, the words “Under God” are in it, but I choose not to pay attention to it. Here are the words
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.
176- Ah, okay. The USofA seems to have a lot of connections to the Lord, eh?
175 – We don’t. ‘Under God’ is – what’s the word? Acceptable? Choosable? OPTIONAL, that’s it. Yes, saying ‘Under God’ is completely optional. It’s not exactly praying.
171- I’ll ask my best friend about it. She’s Muslim.
In support of the addition to the Pledge of Allegiance, it was said that with God in the pledge, it would be both
“a patriotic oath and a public prayer”
I think it was the Knights of Columbus society that said that and suggested the addition.
But yeah, prayer is a bit of a harsh word. I do believe it is asserting a belief that 1: there is indeed a God and 2: you are pledged to him/her.
And you guys are missing my point, may I quote myself in post 173?
“Young kids are pretty much forced to say the pledge. They legally don’t have to because they have a right to free speech, but they do because everyone else does it.”
Little kids are too young to understand that they don’t have to say the pledge. I’m talking, like kindergarten kids. I did not realize there was a choice in the matter until around 3rd grade when my dad told me. Hmm, maybe there should be an emphasis on choice or something.
175- I say elections in 2010, 2011 at the most.
I really would not call the pledge a pray, as much as stupid. Schools did used to have prayers, in the late 1960 and such.
How do you like the health care up there, Kag?
Saying “under God,” or the pledge at all, is optional; however, a lot of kids don’t understand that. I agree with Fat Purple Monkey (does your name have an abbreviation?) about emphasizing the choice in the matter. Young children will more or less do whatever everyone around them is doing, and most of them don’t have the logic capabilities to reason through saying or not saying the pledge. Maybe teachers in the first or second grade should sit down with their students and discuss it.
OH snap
I followed the wiki link for the pledge, and had a little over-reaction to the Bellamy salute.
“Under God” needs to be removed (no matter if it’s optional or not), and hopefully will be sometime soon, as it’s been declared unconstitutional numerous times.
I like the pledge KaiYves said a little while ago somewhere else, about allegiance to the planet as a whole.
Get rid of the pleadge.
Change the Anthem to “My country tis of thee”.
Motto to E pluribus unum
171- That factoid is amazing. I don’t think I realized how cool that place was.
184- anthem- as in, change it to the song that’s just a reworded God Save The {King|Queen}? Something else. I don’t see what’s wrong with the anthem currently. It doesn’t mention God, it’s just a poem about the flag at some battle.
Also, I’d have to memorize more music if they changed the anthem.
I am not particularly devoted to the country. I don’t like pledging to it. Usually, I am late to class and so walking to physics and not pledging at the time the school does on the announcements. When I am not, it’s 7:30 and too early to argue so I stand and mumble something out of force of habit, but omit “under god.”
This land is your land, maybe? I don’t like songs about the flag.
186–oh, please, no. *shudder* I have despised that song since the first day I was forced to sing it in kindergarten. *shudder* and now it’s stuck in my head. gah!
186: I think that’s quite fitting.
I’ve always been partial to “America the Beautiful.”
I was going to suggest that, but… America, America/God shed his grace on thee
Even people who don’t believe in God might not mind singing lines acknowledging that divine favor, if it existed, would be a nice thing for their country to have. Or maybe Stephen Sondheim or somebody nearly as clever could update the lyrics. It’s a pretty song.
184 – The motto already is E Pluribus Unum, isn’t it?
“E Pluribus Unum” is on the seal of the United States and functioned as an unofficial national motto until 1956, when Congress passed a law adopting “In God We Trust” as the official one.
(184) What’s wrong with “The Star-Spangled Banner,” by the way?
I like “The Star-Spangled Banner,†because (I feel) it doesn’t try to define or unite the country like it’s the biggest, best song out there. Looking up the lyrics finds this in the last stanza though:
“Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.'”
(194) Surprisingly few people know the lyrics to the first stanza, so I wouldn’t worry too much about the last one.
It’s fun to sing.
Call me crazy but national anthems aren’t really hot topics.
196–crazy.
193- 1. It’s a song about the flag.
2. It’s very pro war
America the Beautiful: Lovely song, simple but moving tune; however, I think that the idea of God is too imbedded in the song for it to be a national anthem.
This Land is Your Land: I will never be able to hear this song again without thinking of the JibJab video. I don’t think the tune is poweful enough, either. It’s nice for singing at events and in music class at school, but I don’t think it should be the anthem.
I personally love our national anthem. It was written with true patriotism and overwhelming pride in our nation, and I hear the echo of that every time it’s played. True, it was written at a time of war, but unlike La Marseillaise, the French anthem, its lyrics are not bloody or vengeful; rather, they’re praising the enduring power and beauty of America. The flag represents everything our country stands for.
194, 195 – Are the other three stanzas even part of the official anthem?
198- Why don’t you think a song about the flag is good? Do you
mean that you would want a song about the country as a whole?
If so, I agree with Tesseract; the flag represents everything our
country stands for.
200- Yes. stockholm.usembassy. gov/usflag/national_anthem. html
But… it used to be a tavern song! What better represents our country?
On Inaugeration day, one of the seniors in band was like, “We should play that song in the book “America.””
Me: “That’s actually the tune to the british anthem.
Director: “What? nooo…”
Well, I was amused, even if they didn’t believe me. I think our anthem is pretty good as it is. I used to know the lyrics to the rest of it when I learned to play it in 7th grade, but I don’t recall them now.
FUn fact- in band, if you play a wrong note in the national anthem, it means you hate America This is how our band director tries to get us to play things right. Like messing up Christmas music means you’ve ruined Christmas and Santa will crash his sleigh XD
I really really dislike America. It’s so hypocritical. Take all this illegal immigration stuff like “OMG the Mexicans are taking over keep them out!” I was talking Biology and my tablemates were taking about that and I told them that it didn’t make sense, it’s not like America isn’t made up of immigrants already. And they were like, “Yeah, but we’re legal, so it’s OK.”
Me: Now we are, but in the beginning we just came here and took all the land from the Indians and killed them off because we thought they were savages and so they didn’t matter or something. It’s not our land.
It sort of is our land now, I guess, just because we’ve lived here for so long, I mean, I love the land (not the country as an organized whole, just the landscape, like) and I like existing, which I wouldn’t if there had never been colonization of the Americas, but if you go far enough back, we’re the intruders, and so if anything I think we should welcome other intruders, if that’s how we think of them.
203-IKR? Somebody was like “All the illigal immigrants should swim back to their own effing country,” and I was like “I’m part Native American so I can stay, but when are you going back to Ireland?” and he got all pissed off.
201- But, But, But were does the flag show the beauty of america? what about Our freedom?
203- Agreed. It also doesn’t help that the Natives are the poorest and most dehumanized people of the US….
203- I agree that immigration policy is myopic, but I don’t think that’s reason enough to really really dislike the whole country. The ‘settled’ people have always been afraid of immigrants, for our whole history.
204- Because Mexico is separated from us by an ocean.
Wasn’t there an xkcd with that same story…yes…#84. Good stuff.
(205) If you know the circumstances under which the song (originally a poem) was written, you’ll understand what the flag symbolized. If Francis Scott Key had not seen the flag at dawn, it would have meant that Fort McHenry had fallen to the British — a tragic blow to a young, weak country under attack on its own soil. So it’s not really about the flag; it’s about the country’s survival at a time when that was in doubt.
208- True, but That wasn’t really Vendy’s point, was it?
I’m not sure what Vendaval’s point was, but mine was that a song about a flag doesn’t have to be a song just about a flag or about some fuzzy, abstract symbol.
207- I know, that was just an example. Actually most of my reasons for disliking America have to do with colonization and killing off the natives, which just happens to tie in nicely with the immigration. That and it’s all about “freedom” but then none of us are really, truly free, although we’re freer than lots of people who live in dictatorships and stuff. I just don’t understand patriotism at all, for any country. What’s so great about being told what to do?
I think there should be a nice national anthem which has absolutely nothing to do with the country.
211: Well, check the Song Lyrics thread. I’m about to post my summer camp’s anthem.
199 — I was unfamiliar with La Marseillaise and looked it up. It does seem to have a more menacing undercurrent to it, which can probably be attributed to the time in which is was written. I think it’s interesting what an anthem says about a country. I heard the japanese anthem played during the olympics and thought it sounded very sad, so I looked that up as well. Interestingly enough, the lyrics are actually from a Heian-era poem (that’s roughly 700-1200!!) that was changed a bit in the Kamakura (subsequnt) era. Imagine that! Though the lyrics are phrased in a way I think is very accurate to the poetical supposed japanese view of life, it’s set to western music. also it is apparently very nationalistic…well it really hearkens back to feudal ideas which makes sense since it was written so long ago.
There’s so much history even in a song. This is probably better suited to the history thread, but I think it’s important to remember that. The other three verses of the Star Spangled Banner are just as violent and nationalistic as La Marseillaise, but I do not see it as being as vengeful.
203 — wouldn’t it be better to say you dislike bigots or prejudice? It’s the people, not the country, but I suppose the country is the people. What you hate is ignorance, though I seem to remember you dislike government as a whole?
211 – But a national anthem is supposed to provoke patriotic feelings. How could there be an anthem with nothing to do with the country?
197- HEY!
205- according to legend, george washington proclaimed the stars represent heaven, the red stripes represent the mother country (i. e. England) and the white represents liberty, however, that is of dubious verification. The marselilaise seems a rather more vengeful song than the star-spangled banner, although both are warlike.
Whoa. My point was
(1) The song is about a specific event, and a flag. I like that it is not about the whole country, because it’s impossible to define a whole country in one song.
(2) The song is still very much about America though, because, as Robert says, the flag flying shows how America survived in infancy. The flag itself is a symbol of America, and needs to be fuzzy because America is fuzzy.
I don’t know why the flag is how it is, but I’d be interested to find out. reminds me: Canada Thread:
“the two red stipes on our flag stand for the two oceans on either side of us.”
“On the Peruvian flag, which is very similar, the red and white is from a dream Simón Bolivar had, in which a flamingo flew overhead, with the red wings and white body.”
“Barbados also has a tricolor with a centered symbol, but those colors stand for the sea, the land, and the sky.”
re: flag colors/design. Ok, here’s what I remember from when I was little (as in, 3rd or 4th grade, homeschool–back when it was actually interesting, cuz we did lots of reading from fun and interesting educational stuff) about why the flag is the way it is.
Stars: well, as I think everyone knows, they represent the states. So, obviously, our flag has had numerous layouts of stars throughout our countries history, as more and more states joined union.
Stripes: There are 13 stripes, representing the 13 original colonies. I’m a bit fuzzy on why the colors red and white, but I think I remember reading back in gradeschool that they represented war and peace, but that could be all wrong.
What I do find interesting, is that our flag colors (red, white, and blue), are the exact same colors as are on the UK flag, if in a significantly different pattern. Coincidence? *shrug* I dunno.
218 – There are lots of flags that use the colors red, white and blue, such as France, Australia, and many others besides the UK and US. I think it’s just a coincidence.
219- There was actually an episode of Carmen Sandiego where the clue was a red, white and blue flag and they mentioned that.
Zack: It’s red, white and blue, like the flag of the United States!
Ivy: Yeah, or the UK, Liberia, France, Cuba, Costa Rica, Panama, Yugoslavia, Slovenia, the Dominican Republic…
218- im. pretty sure the red means valor, white represents purity and innocence, and blue was meant to represent the heavens(sky)
.219 – Although AUS only uses red/white/blue because the UK did it first…
The stimulus bill passed!
203- I know that it was a long time ago but I find saying that you totally dislike America a little mean. There are a lot of disputes, but that is because we allow for the freedom of speech. I am very proud of my country (U.S) and also very religious. If you don’t believe in god, don’t say god.
On the illegal immigrants subject, I agree that some people go overboard, but having a more protected border is not hypocritical. Times have changed, and now you should obey the laws if a country that you want to become a part of.
224- But what if those laws are constructed so that you can never even enter that country legally, much less become a citizen?
224- Why shouldn’t we change the laws and allow immigrants to become citizens more easily? Don’t they have a right to do so? If their natural rights as human beings are not being respected in their original countries, should the United States deny them their most basic rights as well? To quote our Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” Does it not follow that the United States is required, by even the most elementary of morals, to protect the rights of not only its citizens, but all men, regardless of citizenship? Do not these limitations on immigration and naturalization also restrict basic human rights?
Re: Immigration: I have a very, very strong opinion on this. (Well, not really. Kind of.)
They should allow immigrant to enter more easily, BUT for a different reason. (Piggy: the fact that some countries are oppressive is not the ONLY reason people move.) It’s such a frickin’ hassle to move! You have to get a visa, then a greencard to stay permanently… It’s stressful and, frankly, I wouldn’t want anybody to undergo what I did. While my parents’ greencards were pending – a bit late – I was very, very stressed. My parents told me I shouldn’t, but if anyone made a deportation joke (those were very real to me at the time – I did NOT want my parents to leave me in America), I completely lost it. Seriously. When someone said I could be deported from the class (deported from the school! the state! the country! the continent! the world! the galaxy! Yeah. That was his idea of a joke) for skiving off homeroom (I hated my homeroom teacher), I almost cried. It’s horrible. They should make it easier.
226- I agree.
But while the Declaration of Independence talks of all people, it can only affect American citizens. Immigrants still have to enter the country lagally.
But your right, we can still make it easier.
(228) The Declaration argues that “all men are created equal” as the basis for why the American colonies should be free of British rule. So you can say that it applies to anyone. But the Declaration contains statements of ideals; it doesn’t carry the force of law.
What’s more, the Declaration was about changing the government to suit people’s needs — not about people’s right to find a government they like.
229 / 230- The Mexican government is too nonexistent to be changed, and I don’t think anyone could make the drug cartels protect people’s rights. Besides, people have the right to life and liberty. If they are not able to change their own government, should they not find a government which guarantees these rights? Didn’t the colonists leave Britain to find more liberty through a different government? Sure, it was still British rule, but you can’t deny that it was indeed much different from living in London or somewhere. Overall, I find it extremely arrogant, hypocritical, and a a bit racist that the United States government is trying to limit immigration, especially from Mexico and the rest of Latin America.
The people who come into our country are, more or less, refugees. Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law defines a refugee as “an individual seeking refuge or asylum; especially : an individual who has left his or her native country and is unwilling or unable to return to it because of persecution or fear of persecution (as because of race, religion, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion)”. If a person is socially or financially persecuted in their home country, they seek refuge in another. This is what is happening in our modern world. Should we really force these people to wallow in poverty because of some bureaucracy in the system? To quote Monty Python, the basic thoughts of these people are, “Help! Help! I’m being repressed!”
To deny them citizenship, through directly deporting them or by making the system so long or difficult as to virtually do so, is to condemn them to abhorrent living conditions and destitution. In America they have at least some hope, for them, their spouses, and their children.
231- I agree once again.
But on a slightly different topic, I just heard of a bill being proposed giving immigrants more benefits than citizens do!
They can come, but don’t give them benefits from the gov’t!!!
232- Wait, I’m confused. You want immigrants to be able to come into our country and be granted citizenship, but without benefits? Citizenship without everything that comes with it? I’m sure I’m just misinterpreting your point. Please, clarify for me. You mean, the bill gives benefits without citizenship? *is confused*
Piggy–since I don’t know of what bill Fish42 is referring to, I don’t know, but……Judging from the second sentence in en’s post, I think F42 is saying that the bill proposes MORE benefits for immigrants, than current US citizens have. So, probably en is saying that immigrants can come, but don’t give them more benefits than established citizens. Again, though, that’s just what it sounds like to me….
234- Yeah, that’s what I’m saying, but I’m sorry that I talked about that bill. I recieved an email from my dad showing a CNN reporter talking about an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. I shouldn’t have posted that because I don’t know how recent the report was, and I am sorry. But there are people who want this. And that’s what I’m against, so in conclusion, I believe that we should make it easier for immigrants to enter the country, but I don’t think that makes it right for them to come illegally.
I think I am going to stop posting on the subject before I go into denial and start contradicting myself…
235- I think it’s too late for that. And I also don’t support illegal immigration; the laws are too strict and should be loosened so that people can immigrate legally instead of illegally.
one year, not five. it should take only one year to become a citizen, and not even that.
Yeah, you run away…
Random immigration fact which most of you probably know: in the 1830s, 40s, whatever, Mexico was having a problem with illegal American immigrants!!! And the Americans were being much worse than the Mexicans are right now. Once they made it across the border, they refused to pay taxes or obey Mexican law. It was actually not hard to immigrate– you just had to agree to learn Spanish, convert to Catholicism, and obey Mexican law. Which of course the Americans didn’t want to do, what with Manifest Destiny and all. So the Mexicans banned American immigration and set up border patrols, which were only somewhat effective. And then the Americans in Texas decided they wanted to live in America, just without moving back to America, and so they rebelled against Mexico and were the Lone Star Republic for ten years before they could finally get America to actually want to take them back.
No offense to any Texans who’ve heard the story differently. I’m just saying it the way my history teacher told me. We had a wonderful debate over whether Texas should have joined the U.S. at all where I used the concept of Manifest Destiny to get myself a cookie.
Okay, so I only really read up to the posts on gay mairrage.
I actually AM lesbian so it makes me feel good to hear y’all say that.
Like REALLY good actually.
Beavo (50 some)— with the above statement I think that using “gay” as an insult promotes homophobia. Which annoys me, to say the least.
I live in a very liberial area and go to a very liberial school. All the teachers and kids don’t care who’s gay and who’s not. The teachers even attempt to be “politically accurate” with regard to singing valentine programs and such. I feel very fortunate.
However, the term “gay” and the totally untrue stereotypes that go with it are still found at my school.
it makes me sick.
Anyone else REALLY bugged by this or is it just me?
240–wait, you’re female? That’s odd…..I was thinking you were male for some odd reason.
To be quite honest, regardless of one’s views of homosexuality (which I have nothing against), I think the legalization of gay marriage is the only right thing to do. I mean, even if a person doesn’t agree with the “lifestyle”, it is not his/her place to prevent a person from seeking happiness and having the same rights as anyone else. I mean, even if homosexuality were wrong (which, again, I do not believe), two consenting individuals being together and getting married and having all the same rights as a heterosexual couple hurts no one.
Gah. For a girl who is, to the best of my knowledge, straight, I certainly have very strong opinions on the subject…..
10 Reasons why I No Longer Want to Be Associated with The Republican Party.
1. First and foremost, I am sick of Republican leadership. Over the past year, the people who have been picked to head the GOP have been incompetent, party crossing, greedy idiots who have no values. The GOP does not need to keep picking hillbillies to run the party- there are intellectual republicans *shocker*. They need to stop picking “the good ole’ boys” (and girl, in response to Palin) and actually pick a leader who knows how to run the country without looking like a dumbass, like Bush did for eight years and McCain/Palin did during the campaign trail.
2. The fact is that the Republicans are inherently racist, money-hounding, and too steadfast in their own morals to fix problems. The Republicans don’t want to give money to help poverty in Africa, genocides in Asia, or bloodthirsty coups in South America. They hate non-whites, and non-americans! That’s completely evident! The Republican leadership are all wealthy white people who only care about promoting the needs of other wealthy white people.
3. The religious right. Republicans, as Frigey put it “against individualism, freedom of choice, liberty of thought, and everything in the American Constitution because of a folk-tale he believes.” Homosexuality, although allowed by the constitution, is “immoral” only because scripture says it is. The repubs need to get over the fact that the constitution guides the country, not the bible, and that the views that are expressed in the bible contradict themselves several times so it’s not stable ground to start a country anyways!
4. They blow everything out of proportion. Pro-Abortionists are now “pro-death”. Barack “Husein” Obama is a “terrorist”. First off, abortion kills as much life as taking a shower anyways, and Republicans need to get over that. The attacks on Obama were not only a cheap, low shot, but it also proves point three. In a world where Rush Limbaugh is the voice of the Republican party, we can’t trust anything that comes out of the republican’s mouth anymore.
5. The republican attitude: The republican attitude is expressed as “I love my country, and if you don’t, **** you!”. I feel that Republicans always try to act superior to everyone else, in the country and out. This is expressed in the form of unilateral action during the Bush regime.
yeah, I find that alot of people have really strong opinions. That’s part of the premise of GSAs (Gay-Straight-Alliances) my school had one last year. Many of the people who showed up were just human rights activists. In case anyone was wondering, us lesbians are people. very much so. Indeed, if any of you meet me, you would not be able to tell the difference between me and any other 13-year-old girl.(has to do w/73) also, with euthanasia, this is my story: When I was in third grade, a very good family friend of mine suffered a sudden cardiac death. They got her to the hospitial barely alive, and then transfered her to Harborview(the big hospitial in the Seattle/Tacoma area) where she was put on life support in the ICU. I went to visit her, and when I did she was nothing like the person I knew, she was unconsious, non-responsive and pale. She couldn’t do any thing for herself. Since sudden cardiac death cuts the flow of oxygen to the brain, It was litterly like her brain had died and all that was left of her was a shell. When they took her off life support,(pulling the plug) I was very sad, but I was comforted by the fact that she would not have wanted to live like that.
243– but, but…..of course you are people! Please don’t tell me people honestly try to argue that, just because of your sexual orientation, you are not a person?!?!
The world is screwed up….
242–Not only were those five reasons, but I think many of them are untrue. Note, first, that I have nothing against you disagreeing with republicans nor with you wishing to be a democrat (or anything else, for that matter). Both my parents are republican. They do not “hate non-whites”, and they certainly wouldn’t want a country that only benefited wealthy whites, because although we are not poor, we are by no means wealthy.
As far as homosexuality? My dad, for one, I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that, if he is against the legalization of same-sex marriagae (which I”m not quite sure wht his opinion is), it is most definitely not because the bible says it’s wrong. My dad is an atheist; when my sister reads books that ahve anything to do with religion, he calls them fantasy; when she goes to church he calls it either socializing, or again,fantasy. He is of the opinion that religion is a delusion.
My mother, well, she is a bit religious, but I don’t think that she really thinks of the bilbe as much other than words on a page written by random people. I think she more thinks of homosexuality as a something like a disease–that is, the person in question has no control over liking their own sex as opposed to the opposite. I’m not sure her views on gay marriage, but I’m fairly certain she does not oppose on “the bible says so” grounds. and again, she is republican.
My parents have never once referred to Obama as a terrorist. They do not agree with many of his ideas, do not think he was the best choice for our country, and don’t really think he is going to do a good job, but they;ve never claimed he was a terrorist. I would like to point out, that they were nto too keen on mccain either. and as far as Palin? I pretty sure dad likes her all right as governor, but didn’t think she would be the best for VP, and def. does not think she would be good as prezzie (supposedly she wants to run????).
KAnd I have yet to meet anyone who is just your average republican (and not some sort of fanatic) who thinks they are way better than everyone else just cuz they are republican.
. I saw Bill Ayers speak the other night and he said something that I thought was really interesting. I’ve heard this general idea before, but he said it really eloquently.
Nationalism is loving your country blindly at any cost; Patriotism is loving your country enough to ask it to live up to its ideals and promises.
For those of you who don’t know who Bill Ayers is, he was the leader of the Weather Underground movement in the 60s/70s. The Weathermen were responsible for several bombings, one of which was on the Pentagon. He is now a professor at UIUC (University of Illinois in Chicago). I thought he was a really interesting and intelligent speaker. If I were a student at UIUC, I would definitely try to take his classes. Thoughts?
242- Reason number 4- Alright… I see what you mean, but the shots at Obama were not “low!” How is a president having a friendship with a terrorrist, not a good reason to question his judgement? Republicans are not allowed to question his experience? Are you saying that if Repubs look too hard into president’s past, then Republicans are “low?” I agree with parts of your argument, but not all republicans are rich and racist. My dad is a republican in NY and he is going through big money problems. So that proves that the Rich republican leaders aren’t just looking out for themselves! What they isn’t just bias, it makes sense!
to reason 5- Alright, if you don’t like the country, THEN WHY DO YOU LIVE HERE! (I’m not taking about you specifically, I mean in general) I understand if people from out of the country don’t like Americans. When Republicans get mad at them, it’s because what they say doesn’t make sense, or they want to hurt Americans. I’m proud to say that I like my country(U.S.), and that I’m not going to be happy if you dislike it, or want to hurt it’s citizens.
reason 2- So… we have to help Africa, and not Iraq! I understand that there are problems there, but the U.S. has problems concerning AMERICAN CITIZENS. If you lived in the time of WWII would you say that we shouldn’t stay in Japan to help build back their country? Should we have let it crumble? Do you think we should let Iraq turn into the next Vietnam? Maybe I’m talking complete nonsense, but it seems to me that it all makes perfect sense.
Those reasons were “low.” So don’t go making fun of Republicans. Please. Don’t take it personally. I don’t want to make any enemies; I just enjoy having political debates, so please, tell me if I’m wrong.
242- Dammit, quit calling people racist/sexist/spawns of Satan! Pardon my French. I’m sorry, but you’re going to go down the path Fridgey took, and I wouldn’t recommend it. Stop flaming. If I was a GAPA… *vents silently*
254-SFTDP I just read your post and I see why you would want to be in his class, but I don’t think I could be in his class. (Yes, I knew about him before I read your description) I would be distracted by the fact that he never regrets what he did, and if I even thought about doing that, I would be scared of myself.
(247) Piggy: Cliff Eagle wasn’t just calling names; he raised five ways in which he says Republicans have disappointed him and have to do better. If he’s overstating the case or making unfair generalizations, then it’s fine to call him on that and try to set the record straight. But righteous indignation coupled with slightly toned-down swearing will only fan the flames.
Everyone: if you disagree with someone, don’t just shout. Debate! That’s what the “extra care” in the thread’s description means. It’s all the more important if you think someone is trying to provoke you.
249- He said, “Republicans are inherently racist, money-hounding, and too steadfast in their own morals to fix problems. The Republicans don’t want to give money to help poverty in Africa, genocides in Asia, or bloodthirsty coups in South America. They hate non-whites, and non-Americans!” And so Cliff Eagle must be calling me, a Republican, these things as well. I take great offense at all he said. And it’s not just this post that’s angering me. He’s said other things as well.
(250) If he’s wrong, he’s wrong. If he’s ridiculously wrong, then he’s ridiculous, and his statements should be easy to refute or ignore. Either way, I don’t see any need to take them personally.
There’s a saying: “An insult is like poison: it doesn’t affect you unless you accept it.” It may not be applicable in all cases, but I’ve found it widely useful.
</GAPA_sermonette>
250- I AGREE! ((But I don’t know about any “other” things though…”))
250–I understand why you are upset. However, a heated response to Cliff Eagle does no good. Both of you seem to be have very strong, opinionated personalities (I do not mean this as a bad thing). In fact, the two of you, at least your online personas, seem a lot alike to me.
As such, a heated response is going to do even less good here than it would ordinarily (not that it ever does much good). And just because Cliff Eagle thought it necessary to spout insults that is no reason for you to “lower” yourself to his level. All this will do is convince him that he is correct, that republicans really are as horrid as he might think. A structured, reasoned argument is your best bet. Before responding to one of his provoking posts, wait a while, cool off, or else you will type off a quick, angered reply, which will get the debate nowhere.
Is Cliff Eagle being unfair and overgeneralizing? Yes, I think so. But a response in anger does not good to demonstrate this to anyone.
[/preachy rant]
Believe me, I am just as prone to responding in the heat of anger in real-life. Online, a couple years back, I had a couple posts where I was almost as bad as Fridgey (*shudder*). I bashed my sister and her views something horrible, which I still regret to this day, and did almost from the moment I first hit submit. although I am still just as bad in real life with “heat of the moment” responses (you do not want to witness a fight between my dad and me), I’ve found it is much easier to restrain yourself online. And I think you will accomplish so much more with your argument if you give yourself time to cool down before responding.
You’re right, Luna and Robert. I apologize for my posts. I let my anger get the best of me, as I sometimes do. I just couldn’t believe Cliff Eagle’s post. Even so, I still hold that I am not the only one at fault here. I’m going to go take a break for a while; maybe I’ll be back tomorrow.
248 (Fish) – I just read your post and I see why you would want to be in his class, but I don’t think I could be in his class. (Yes, I knew about him before I read your description) I would be distracted by the fact that he never regrets what he did, and if I even thought about doing that, I would be scared of myself.
I don’t know why you believe that Bill Ayers doesn’t regret what he did. He didn’t make any excuses for his actions when he was interviewed on Wednesday. Several articles have been published on him, where he tries to explain his motivation and the circumstances surrounding the Weathermen, but I never got a sense of pride in his actions. The 60s and 70s were very turbulent times, and, like it or not, violent protests got quite a bit of attention. I haven’t been able to find any casualties associated with the Weathermen, aside from a faulty explosive that killed two of their own members.
246 (Fish, again) – How is a president having a friendship with a terrorrist, not a good reason to question his judgement?
That’s a little ridiculous. Obama and Ayers (assuming it is Ayers you are referring to) served on a board together. They are not friends. Even if they were, does that really bother you that much? Knowing a ‘terrorist’ does not mean you are likely to become one yourself. Also, Ayers has been cleared of all charges. Maybe you have friends who are troublemakers, but I bet you’d object to anyone assuming that you are a troublemaker just by association.
*pops in* One thing: It’s unreasonable to suggest that if someone doesn’t like this country, they should just ‘get out’. It’s difficult to move countries at a drop of a hat.
Also…
Lesbians are people. If anyone disagrees, show them that your heart beats and that you are a living, talking creature.
*scrolls up*
*decides not to respond*
*leaves*
Also, I may be wrong, but it seemed to me that Cliff Eagle’s comments were pointed mostly at the Republican leadership. Criticizing the public face of a party is not the same as criticizing the individuals who belong to it. I happen to know a number of long-time Republicans who would agree with at least some of Cliff Eagle’s remarks.
It’s more than likely that every one of us will at some time or another be associated with a group or groups that others find deplorable, misguided, or downright looney-tunes in some way. How you react when criticized will likely either confirm their stereotypes or surprise them — and here’s where such moments can become opportunity.
Confound the stereotypes! Mess with their heads! Let your particulars undermine their generalities!
Why not use this thread as a laboratory where you can experiment with making your responses more effective? As Luna said, it’s easier to practice restraint online where you can take the time to think about your responses.
What is this thread about?
255- I didn’t accuse him of being a terrorrist. I was just questioning his judgement. A lot of things suggested that he was associated with him. *questions his thought* Alright, I don’t have any immediate proof about that, but I remember watching news channels reporting about that. *tries to escape comment*. And also, a police-man did die from one of the bombings. But I have to go eat a PB+J sandwich so BYE! I’d like to totally forget about this. I don’t like making enemies by politics. Unless I see something that I can’t ignore, I’m leaving. I’m sorry for any offense, or anything false…
Re: everyone: I’m not criticizing Republicans in general, just Republican leadership. That was pretty well expressed throughout my post. I think that republicans are overall great people, I just am completely dissatisfied with Republican leadership. After all, I did consider myself a Republican-leaning independent for a long time….
246 (Fish)-
The most important parts of your post have already been discussed, but There are a few general (hopefully constructive) comments I’d like to make.
“to reason 5- Alright, if you don’t like the country, THEN WHY DO YOU LIVE HERE! (I’m not taking about you specifically, I mean in general) I understand if people from out of the country don’t like Americans. When Republicans get mad at them, it’s because what they say doesn’t make sense, or they want to hurt Americans. I’m proud to say that I like my country(U.S.), and that I’m not going to be happy if you dislike it, or want to hurt it’s citizens.”
Cliff Eagles’ original statement was “I feel that Republicans always try to act superior to everyone else, in the country and out.” He never said that he didn’t like America. Telling people to leave the country is never a good debate technique, because it’s as much their country as it is yours, and the best part of America, I feel, is its ability to change. If you understand why people outside the country dis like America, why do you dislike them so much?
Declaring you love your country implies that others, possibly who you’re speaking with, do not. This is counterproductive.
Shouting in all caps will not make you look smart, just angry. While you may be angry, attention to form will make your points more accepted because they will be easier to read. try using bulleted/numbered lists, italics, etc.
reason 2- So… we have to help Africa, and not Iraq! I understand that there are problems there, but the U.S. has problems concerning AMERICAN CITIZENS. If you lived in the time of WWII would you say that we shouldn’t stay in Japan to help build back their country? Should we have let it crumble? Do you think we should let Iraq turn into the next Vietnam? Maybe I’m talking complete nonsense, but it seems to me that it all makes perfect sense.
Cliff Eagle never said anything about leaving Iraq, he only deplored the current lack of U.S. involvement in other parts of the world. American citizens are priority, of course, but world stability means world safety, and that can only be achieved through greater economic equality. In this way you actually agree with Cliff Eagle, he referred to Africa; you post WWII Japan.
261- Strictly for defense purposes, I don’t want to kick people out who don’t like America. I’m just wondering why they would live in a country that they didn’t like. I just don’t understand that.
and for the last bit, I was just meaning that don’t we have enough problems? And how do I agree with him?
I knew that I went too far, but I still agree with what I said. Mostly.
But I would really like for this debate to end because I always get in too far with these kinds of things…
(262) TFATF42, I don’t understand why so many people are in a rush to leave the debate when they “get in too far.” All the more reason to participate, as this is the perfect place to learn how to dial back and handle oneself when opinions are heartfelt.
Everyone here is intelligent, means well, likes one another, and GAPAs are here to help if need be. The rest of the world doesn’t always offer such luxuries.
As I said earlier, consider this a lab where you can experiment with expressing yourself effectively.
Sorry it took me so long to get to this but…
in case anyone wanted clarification on why I put in the comment about being a person—
Some people i meet actually don’t really believe that. It also makes me sick.
TFATF42—I agree with Rebecca.
On the same note, I would like to thank whoever came up with this blog, because I can express myself and my opinions and the worst anybody can do is me.
Oh, and Rebecca, my birthday is March 26, 1996.
it isn’t on the calendar.
(264) You’re on the calendar now. And Robert is the one to thank for the existence of MuseBlog.
265–Which is just one more reason that we all think Robert is awesome.
242- Stop generalizing. I will repeat once more, my friend, STOP GENERALIZING. The awful accusations that you make in your post are an unruly example of why *certain people* were kicked off the blog, and I assure you, if you keep making the close-minded and terribly rude accusations towards the general republican community that you already have done, you may following close in their footsteps. It certainly wouldn’t surprise me.
What I’m trying to say, Cliffy, is that if you toy with fire, you’re going to get burned, and if this is some sort of lab, then that’s bound to happen very, very, VERY quickly. Control your words, and try to keep it civil. And here, people generally tend to look down on swearing, so try and control that tongue of yours as well.
As you all can see, I don’t take criticism lightly, even it isn’t made directly to me. Lets try to keep things at a calm, Muserly level from now on. Agreed?
(267) Did you read Cliff Eagle’s comment #260 in which he explained that he was referring to the Republican leadership, NOT to individuals?
Also, you might read some of the other posts, such as 249, 251, 253, and subsequent comments.
Then reread your own post. From what I know of you, I’m sure your intentions are the best, but can you see how your words might be interpreted as inciting to flame? Or that most of your comment could be seen as being at odds with your desire “to keep things at a calm, Muserly level”?
(266) And just think, if Robert hadn’t had the brilliance to create MuseBlog, WE wouldn’t know how awesome all of you are!
267- Have you read the post? I was criticizing Republican leadership, not the republican community at large! … I put up with your views… Check out this.
https://musefanpage.com/blog/?p=1510#comment-122
[This post has been snipped in places to lower the Hot-Topic temperature. Calm down, please, everyone. –Robert]
268- You’re right. *shame* I’m sorry for being a fire-breathing baby. Still, being that most of the Republican party would be followers of Republican leaders, it doesn’t seem that he can insult the acts of a few without branching out accusation to the many, just as with what happened with bashing today’s Christians for the events of the Crusades.
I don’t want to be mean. I don’t mean to be mean. S’all’s I’m saying is that when people call each other names, things don’t tend to go well. As shown, I’m very bad at keeping my feelings in which is in some cases a good thing. It was not in this case. I only read what I saw to be offensive without exploring more of the argument, and I’m sorry for being a prat. And for drastically contradicting myself.
(271) You’re doing fine, Agrrrfishi. As I keep saying, this is a great place to learn, and it’s apparent you are reflecting on what’s been said here. The beauty of writing on a blog is you can let your emotions out and then go back and look at things more rationally before you post.
I should clarify, no one is asking anyone to be less passionate about their beliefs, merely to be more considerate in their expression.
By the way, being a member of any organization doesn’t necessarily mean you agree with or identify with the leadership of a given moment in time. Some people leave when they disagree, some stick around and either hope for the phase to pass or work to hasten the change. No group of any size is a monolith. To assume otherwise is also a form of generalizing.
Is anyone familiar with Gary Larson’s “Far Side” cartoons? I’ve searched the Web and found just one copy of one of my favorites. I shouldn’t post it without permission (and will remove it if it causes any trouble), but it’s so relevant to this thread that I can’t resist showing it to you:
*enters thread, reads a few comments*
273~ I love the Far side!
*exits*
273: FAR SIDE! YAY! In second grade, I did a project on bombardier beetles. One of my favorites is one where this guy is on an island, and he’s wearing these ridiculous high heel shoes. This fairy lady is telling him, “You could go home any time you wanted! Just click your heels and repeat after me…” I also found that Muse once did an interview with Gary Larson.
**DO NOT REPLY TO THIS POST **BZZT** IT IS NOT RELATIVE TO THIS THREAD**
273- Far Side rocks!
*follows Fiddler out of the Fray*
On the topic of republican leadership……I just linked to this youtube vid off yahoo…..
w w w. youtube. com/ watch? v=_vz1TVpwme0
Future politician/repub leader/prezzie wannabe?
Can’t say I got much out of what he was saying, as I was too busy cracking up with the fact that he sounds like a girl, his out of control gestures, and just his inflections. Great comic relief.
I think it’s just that, well, his constant gestures with his hands, although they might look relatively normal on a grown man are unbelievably comical on a kid… ok, I should go finish up some more homework and then head to bed….. *is still laughing*
Nobody has ever been kicked off the blog.
262 (Fish)-
Strictly for defense purposes, I don’t want to kick people out who don’t like America. I’m just wondering why they would live in a country that they didn’t like. I just don’t understand that.
Well, as I’ve said, America is its people, and we can change the country in any way. Also, leaving the country you’ve lived in your whole life isn’t easy.
Just to clear things up: nobody here has said they didn’t like America.
and for the last bit, I was just meaning that don’t we have enough problems? And how do I agree with him?
Ah, yes, we do have many problems, but Cliff Eagle is saying that while we do have problems, we have very few problems compared to most of the rest of the world. Spending money on Africa would be a lot cheaper and less dangerous than the war in Iraq. You agreed with him by saying that we did the right thing, rebuilding Japan. He thinks that we should continue that policy today by building Africa, etc., while you think that we should get out of Iraq first.
Gary Larson!
277- He didn’t really say much.
*reads a few comments*
*quietly leaves*
Alright here’s my response to MissSwann on gender issues.
What you’re talking about sexism as a general concept. What I said was that titling magazines with terms fans are familiar with is not sexist because, in general, if someone wants to read something they will. I don’t have experience with other Asian countries to the extent that I can discuss them to their full potential but as I said in Japan gender issue are complex.
I in no way disagree that the above needs to change.
The Republican party needs to own up, regroup, and unite rather than continue to subject themselves to bitter infighting.
I have more, but I’ll stop there.
273- Have I ever mentioned that I love that guy?
280- I know, I know. I really need to do more research on the things I care abouot (sexism, etc), but I have so much homework I just don’t have the time.
32- Sorry for double post, but that is one of the best statements I’ve ever read on this issue.
I know the feeling. It’s funny, because in my experiance, sexism even finds its’ way into LGBTQ (I explained what that means on this thread, didn’t I?) litature. ALL the cliched, stereotypical, teen LGBTQ novels that you can find in a middle school library are about stereotypical, cliched, gay BOYS. And to make it worse, the authors have NO IDEA what they’re writing about. They say the books are about “the typical feelings and fears of your typical LGBTQ teen” but either they aren’t or I’m stranger than I thought.
Oh, and by the way, how do you all feel about Prop 8. passing? I know there was already a small conversation about gay marriage but still…
283-Re:Prop 8-Grrrr. I can’t believe people could be that…biased. Do people seriously believe that the government should be able to do that? (don’t kill me, please)
I can’t even find those books in my library, because my school tries so hard to be “politically correct” and they’re probably afraid we’ll get ideas.
your school is mistaken. you can’t “get ideas” you just kinda know.
why would anyone kill you? I also hate prop 8
283- So far I have not read a decent book for teens about LGBTQ teens coming out/ whatever else the author chooses to write about. And they’re all pretty much the same anyways. So yes, I agree.
What is Prop 8. I’m sorry to have to ask. I’m not a citizen of the USofA.
285-I know they’re mistaken, it’s stupid, but true.
286-Oh, yes. Prop 8 was a proposition to ban gay marriage in California, which passed, much to my annoyance (and shock). And others’, too. Does Canada have a law against gay marriage?
282- why thank you
Ok. Maybe I don’t like gay marriage. Just an unconscious, morals decision. But I feel that laws banning gay marriage are first, unconstitutional and illegal, and two, worse than allowing gay marriage. Nobody should be denied of any of their rights, and prop 8 violates the Constitution.
287- That is terrible. Canada allows gay marriage.
post 258?
(290) AP, this thread is about anything people want to talk about. It’s a special place for discussing topics that might be too controversial for other threads.
289- Really? AWESOME! here (U.S.) it is by state, and not many allow it.
288-I also belive it to be a violation of the constitution.I also believe that it was voted in based on propaganda and homophopic lies(grrrrrrrr)
Of course it’s a violation. I mean, it is an infringement of rights, which the constitution supposedly protects and upholds for everyone. Instead, the government blatantly ignores the rules set down by our forefathers, and passes laws restricting the rights of individuals for no more reason than they disagree with their private life. So what? What happened to the freedom of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Oh, wait…..It’s “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as you don’t do anything that anybody somewhere might disagree with.” How silly of me to forget that key little part.
Gah, sorry. Obviously not really snarking at anybody in particular there, just running on less than four hours sleep and am even more irritable than usual. People sicken me with their unwarranted discrimination and restriction of rights, etc.
I think my college tries to be accepting of sexual orientation and such……..it makes the surveys they send out rather amusing sometimes.
Ex.:
Often, when asking gender, instead of the “universal” male/female choice, it is often male/female/transgender, and once (the first of their surveys I ever saw, and the first time I ever saw options other than male/femle for gender), it was male/female/transgender/other, and my mom and I were honestly in stitches. It was just sorta like, er, wait, other? What’s left? (What is left?????)
The survey I’m taking right now has got like fifty zillion choices for orientation (some diversity survey, I think):
Bisexual
Gay
Heterosexual
Queer (I thought this was merely a derogatory term for homosexuals? *is confused*)
Lesbian
Uncertain
Questioning
Other (specify)
10. With whom have you had romantic relationships? (Mark none or all that apply)
Women
Men
Transgender
Other question on survey that is of a different topic, but stilll:
7. To what degree are you satisfied with the numerical faculty diversity on campus (i.e., numbers of individuals who come from historically underrepresented groups)?
Completely satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not very satisfied
Not at all satisfied
No opinion
Well, I’m not very satisfied, but not for the reasons I think they’re looking for. Oh, they’re nice and diverse (I had three bloody teachers last semester who couldn’t speak clear english if their life depended on it). So, no, I”m not satisfied at all. This is supposed to be a place that teaches, how are students supposed to learn when the school values diversity in teachers more than it values hiring teachers who speak the language and can be understood?
To return to an exhausted argument………In bioethics this morning, our teacher read this little blurb about this girl (I forget where–*googles*) in Brazil who got an abortion. So:
This nine year old girl was raped by her step father, got pregnant (at nine!) with twins, her mother helped her to get an abortion, and the Catholic church excommunicated both the mother and the doctors who assisted. Erm, wtf?
I think this is a prime example of when abortion is acceptable. This girl is still just a child herself and in no way ready to have a child, emotionally or physically (I can only imagine how harmful that would be to both mother and child). Additionally, she was raped, it wasn’t “consensual” (I dont’ even like that term when referring to a kid……), and it was practically incest (he was her stepfather, but still). I can’t see anyway whatsoever that this could possibly be deemed wrong for the girl to have gotten an abortion. It seems like it was the only right thing to be done for all involved, the little girl especially.
I mean, nine years old is much to young to give birth, and to have a child (I’m almost 19–I can’t even imagine being a mother). It’s just…….horrible.
The Tralfamadorians in Kurt Vonnegut’s Slaughterhouse-Five see seven different sexes on Earth, all necessary for children to be born.
295 – That’s horrible! And a situation where abortion would be the best option. I mean, really… NINE YEARS OLD???
My friend has a club that supports gay rights and goes against prop. 8. If I went to her school, I would join. If the jerks who passed prop. 8 had checked, they would have realised that prop. 8 was illegal. It is a law that gives consequences for something that allready happened. This is called an ex post facto law, and is banned by the contsitution.
I’m for:
gay rights,
abortion,
diversity (as long as it’s not valued above quality),
peoples’ rights (including children),
Earth-saving practices.
I’m against:
animal testing,
cruelty to animals,
cruelty to children,
fossil fuel use,
discrimination.
297–yup.
298–Why are you against animal testing? Although I don’t necessarily like it, per se, I think it is a necessary thing.
Experimentation is necessary for medical breakthroughs that will benefit all humanity. And although human test subjects would, perhaps, be ideal, this is not a feasible option: The numbers of test subjects necessary for thorough research precludes humans; it would be impossible to get enough volunteers (and forcing people into the experiments is wrong for the obvious ethical reasons). As a result, it is necessary to use animals, causing harm to a “few” to benefit the greater good.
However, I do think that the methods used should be the simplest, most direct method available to achieve the desired effect. That is, I don’t think the experimenters should do in ten separate procedures what could be done in one. Additionally, I think the intentions of the experiment are the most imporant: What is expected to be learned? What sort of impact will this have on people? I think there should be some limitations, of course. I don’t think experiments, such as the testing of cosmetics, are worthwhile. This has no significant, beneficial impact on humanity, whereas other experiment’s do. (cancer in mice, etc)
I have no objection to the possibility of alternatives, but I don’t really think that animal experimentation is something that can be completely exterminated, without detrimental effects on medicine.
The real question is, do the “risks” outweigh the benefits? Are the deaths of the animals used worth the breakthroughs that might be made that will benefit humanity for years to come? I think so. It really is something of a necessary “evil”.
‘K, sorry about the long post, there. Animal experimentation is our current topic in bioethics, the one on which we are currently having online discussions this week, and which I and the rest of my group present on after spring break, so……yeah, I got a lot to say on it right now….
Alright, ya’ll. So I saw that Agrrrfishi (?) was getting upset about generalization. And understandably so. Generalization is one of the many Logical Fallacies my Logic class is currently covering. It’s obnoxious, and rude, and, most importantly in argument, illogical. I think we should try to make a list of all Logical Fallacies (I can put mine up here when I get home, if you want), and then do our best to avoid committing those fallacies when arguing. I think that would really tame this thread a lot (since one of the fallacies I see most on here is that of Ad Hominem, or, insulting the person, not the argument), and would also make for clearer, more logical argument. Sound good?
283-I think the general consensus of MB was pissed off. I sent apology letters to all my buddies in California, telling them I was sorry their state could be so hateful.
295-Weren’t they fine with the father, too? I’m against abortion mostly because I think people use it so they can have sex without consaquences, and I think that an unborn baby is still a human. But a nine-year old? Yes, in this case, I support abortion. But geez, you guys, unless you’re raped, it’s not that hard to wear a condem.
Mom and I just had another (God, I thought I said I wasn’t going to DISCUSS this with her!) argument about homosexuality. According to her, it dosn’t exist, and homosexuality is a function of the falling socioty and all gays are promicuous. I noted that I was a bisexual and had never had sex, and that I didn’t see anything wrong with a relationship of the same sex. Who is she to say that it’s wrong? How do you KNOW, how can you even BELIEVE that two men can’t fall in love? Anyway. I don’t think I’ve ever heard a good argument against homosexuality. If someone can come up with one, please tell me, I’d like to hear it.
Sorry, stupid submit button has a mind of it’s own.
294- There is a supposed “third gender”, although I don’t know anything about it and never met anyone who identified with it. No, Chris Crocker dosn’t count.
Since someone did a list, I’ll make mine.
For:
Gay rights
Human rights, for that matter
Nuclear power
Being “green”, I guess
Undecided:
Abortion
War
Against:
Have to go bye sorry.
301-man your mom must be annoying. I personally run into alot of straight people who “don’t get” how I can be lesbian. So I ask them “how can you be straight” or “how do you know your straight” and they say they just KNOW and I tell them Well, I JUST KNOW i’m gay. so there. by the way anyone have good ideas for overcoming akwardness and telling your parents your gay when they are CONVINCED you like a boy in your class?
on prop 8.
my mom had a patient who went and rallyed for prop 8 without knowing what it ment. the patient apparently thought that without the law the government would force churches to marry gay couples, which was not the case.
that’s what I ment by homophobic lies.
294- another one is hermaphrodite, or whatever they call it.
303- Maybe the next time they tease you about likeing said boy laugh and say “That’s impossible, I’m gay! *laugh* Pass the potatoes please”. Well, the last part if you’re at the dinner table. That’s how I would do it, if I knew they would accept me.
Uh…did anyone even read my post?
I did, Shadowkat. (Welcome back, by the way! It’s good to “see” you.) Please do post your list of fallacies when you get the chance. Lessons in logic are always instructive — bearing in mind that one person’s “logical fallacy” is another person’s “debating tactic.”
306–Yes, I did actually. I just didn’t have the time or energy to respond at the moment (lots of homework and stuff, y’know). I agree that we should try and make logical, reasonable, sound arguments, although I think many of us at least try to……..
But sure, post your list!
Logical Fallacies (to Avoid):
1.) Ad Hominem – attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself (Ex. That awful liar said that smoking is bad for you!)
2.) Tu Quoque – saying that because your opponent does something, you can do it, too (Ex. Well, you smoke, so why shouldn’t I?)
3.) Appeal to Ignorance – saying that because something can’t be proven to be one way, it must be the other way (Ex. You can’t prove that God exist, so He probably doesn’t exist!)
4.) Irrelevant Thesis – although an argument may be valid and/or true, it is not the relevant (does not matter) to the debate at hand (Ex. Abortion is morally wrong; one of the aborted fetuses might discover the cure for cancer! [In this case, who the fetus might have grown up to be isn’t an argument having to do with the morality of abortion. And argument that had to do with morality might cite the Bible, or some other moral-guidance text.])
5.) Begging the Question – supporting one’s argument with an assumption that hasn’t been proven yet (Ex. Rocks have feelings, so people shouldn’t be allowed to carve them.)
6.) Bifurcation – making it appear as though there are only two options, when there really may be more (Ex. If you don’t donate money to PETA, then you don’t care about animals.)
7.) Hasty Generalization – basing an argument about a large number of things on too few examples (Ex. I asked three people, and they said their favorite gum was Juicy Fruit, so everyone’s favorite gum must be Juicy Fruit.)
Obviously, most of these examples are rather extreme, but this way, they’ll hopefully be easier to understand. Just be aware that these fallacies may step on-stage a little more subtly in real argument than they do, here.
Also, I have more fallacies, and I’ll post more if I see them, when I get a chance.
Finally, I really hope my HTML worked. ^_^
Thanks, Kat, now we know how to tell someone that they’re a terrible debater. Other than “you’re a terrible debater”, that is.
But seriously, that was actually helpful. I’ll have to print that out and carry it around. Please post more!
Dosn’t count as double post, just nobody has posted. Sorry, anyways.
I didn’t get to finish my against list, my dad had to use the computor.
Against:
Global Warming (I don’t believe in it)
School uniforms
18 year old draft
Generalizations or labels
Animal testing
Book banning
311–See post 299.
Also, by “18 year old draft”, you mean like the draft as in during time of war drafting all able bodied individuals 18 and older into armed service?
Hehe, if that ever happens again (and if they include women, not sure if they do…..) I am, according to my doctor, exempt, because I have scoliosis with a large enough degree of a curve (around 20-25) that the army wouldn’t accept me even if I was interested…….which I’m not. I just remember him telling me that like 7 yrs ago when I was in to see him one time for a check up back when I was still wearing a back brace for it…….(Had to wear one from August 2001 when I was 11 to spring 2005……20 hrs a day. WAsn’t that bad, but I’ve got great understanding for women in corsets……)
312- As the current laws stand, women are off the hook. That’s a bit sexist, in my opinion.
Ugh. I would NEVER want to be drafted. Too exciting and too dangerous.
312- I’m just counting on my being a complete weakling to keep me out. I really don’t want to go to jail or Canada.
313–Yeah. If they’re going to have it at all, and since women are (rightly so) allowed to join the armed forces, women should be included as well. Not that I really like it to begin with, but…..
.313 – I don’t really think it’s sexist at all. (As a Quaker, I don’t support the draft in any shape or form, but for the sake of argument…) Men are more efficient soldiers. They are stronger, faster, and usually have a higher endurance level. If women were drafted, they would simply not be able to compete with men physically. And, even if women were 50% of the army, other countries don’t have many women in their armed forces either, and would more easily be able to overpower ours. In WWII, the US lost a good portion of a generation of men. If the number of women who had died was comparable to that, we would have a serious problem reproduction-wise. The age structure of the US would be dramatically altered in a negative way for at least a generation, which would, in turn, put strain on social welfare programs to say the least.
Wow Shadowkat…where did yuou learn all of this cool stuff? You’re pretty smart, some type of philosopher, or something?
311- I’m not sure that we want to go into this debate again, but even if you do believe that human caused Global Climate Change is a lie, then why are you against people taking action for the environment? The benefits of upgrading our infrastructure are great enough to pursue even without life threatening pressure.
317- Just because women are physically diminutive does not mean they are mentally so, and there’s a high ratio of noncombatant support soldiers to combatant soldiers.
I’m not sure what you’re saying “And, even if women were 50% of the army…”
Your argument about the population pyramids assumes that the number of men drafted would remain the same and only the number of women drafted would rise, but the number of men drafted would actually fall because women would balance the need. An imbalance in any way is bad, of course, but a good ratio of men to women is better than women far outnumbering men (even if the population is then high).
Lol, I dunno, mr.norm, Logic just fascinates me, what can I say?
P.S. I’m glad you decided to post, here…have you been exploring, yet?
*pies with banana cream pie*
319-I’m against the theory, not the advancements. And I’m for “being green” however much of a catchphrase that is. I recycle and stuff. I like trees and animals, you know. I’m not completely heartless. I agree that keeping the world’s environment safe is important.
315- Or worse yet–jail in Canada!
317- What?! “Other countries don’t have many women in their armed forces either, and would more easily be able to overpower ours.” Again, what?! Many, many countries require women to be in the draft. In Israel, every single human being (excepting, of course, those physically unable) are required to serve in the military, whether en is male or female. “If the number of women who had died was comparable to that, we would have a serious problem reproduction-wise.” For the third time, what?! So women are just baby-making machines which men have to protect? Men are, as I’m sure you know, equally important to the childbearing process as women, so any number of fatalities, no matter the gender, affects the birth rate.
322–Not to mention, if a large number of one gender only died, it would lead to a gender imbalance. If an equal (and half as large) number of both sexes died, it would be less of an issue. Because the gender balance would remain the same. And, hey, if a few less children were born? Not that big a deal……the world’s getting pretty over populated as it is.
.317 (Vendaval) – Women are absolutely as capable mentally as men are. I’m not arguing that at all. However, I do feel like it would be limiting to the US armed forces if there was a large percentage of the force that could simply not perform physically at the level typically expected of our Army, Navy and Marine Corps. Women are simply less physically capable in this setting. Look at the world records for speed and strength. Women are always behind men in these aspects of competitions. Speed and strength are essential qualities for a soldier. Even if the large numbers of women in the armed forces (due to the draft) were serving in noncombat positions, they could very well be called upon to engage in combat. And, in this situation, I think it would put the US Army at a sudden disadvantage. I’m not arguing against women soldiers. On the contrary, I admire any women who joins the military of her own accord. I just don’t think the draft should include women.
I’m not sure what you’re saying “And, even if women were 50% of the army…â€
Your argument about the population pyramids assumes that the number of men drafted would remain the same and only the number of women drafted would rise, but the number of men drafted would actually fall because women would balance the need.
If women, as well as men, were drafted into the army, statistically the gender ratio in the armed forces would approach 1:1, not taking into account voluntary service. A woman would be just as likely as a man to be drafted, so there would be approximately 50% women and 50% men in the US armed forces.
322 (Piggy) –
Many, many countries require women to be in the draft.
No. These are the only countries which draft women into military service: China, Cuba, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Peru, and Taiwan (source: Wikipedia). This is certainly not ‘many, many’ countries. Also, these countries (Israel, North Korea and China excluded) don’t have much of an armed force to begin with. Furthermore, Cuba, North Korea and China are communist states, which is part of the reason for their draft regulations, as they are attempting to make all citizens equal. If the US were a communist state, I would be more in support of a dual-gendered draft. You, as I recall, don’t like communism a whole lot, but you still think these countries have the right idea?
Men are, as I’m sure you know, equally important to the childbearing process as women, so any number of fatalities, no matter the gender, affects the birth rate.
Women can reproduce without a male present (artificial insemination), while science has not yet discovered a way for a child to be carried to term without a woman. If nearly an entire generation of American men were to be wiped out, it would be much less of a catastrophe (population-wise) than if all women from a generation dropped dead. In the event that women did become part of the draft, it would more likely be an even balance of males and females at risk, so we could, instead, lose half of a generation of each! Remind me again how this is a good thing?
323 (Luna) – And, hey, if a few less children were born? Not that big a deal……the world’s getting pretty over populated as it is.
I don’t think you understand how much population balances can affect a nation. As we are currently seeing, a large amount of elderly citizens puts a lot of strain on social welfare programs and medical programs, not to mention the economy. Luckily, there are also a good number of young people who are working and putting a portion of their paycheck into social security. If (for any reason) there was a lack of people of working age combined with a flux of elderly people, our economy would simply collapse.
While Americans should, perhaps, consider having less children, the effects of a lost generation would be detrimental to the US population pyramid. It wouldn’t be a ‘few less children’ born, it would be much more serious than that. We’re seeing the effects of a lost generation right now, and I’m sure you’ve noticed that our economy is tanking.
_____
I really do not support the draft in any shape or form, but in the case that it were to be reimplemented, I think it would make a lot of sense to allow the draftees a choice of military service or civil service (this could be in factories, as medics, essentially anything that needed to be done). This is already done with those who file for CO status (contentious objector, given to men who can prove a history of pacifism and anti-war support), but I would support it being expanded as a viable choice for other men (and women?) as well. Thoughts?
324–Zallie: “Women can reproduce without a male present (artificial insemination), while science has not yet discovered a way for a child to be carried to term without a woman. If nearly an entire generation of American men were to be wiped out, it would be much less of a catastrophe (population-wise) than if all women from a generation dropped dead.”
This assumes that women, in the absence of men, would all go out and get AIs. I don’t really see that this is likely. Sure, some women might choose this option, but I doubt if, just because a large portion of a geneartion of males died, that the number of AIs performed would increase significantly. Chances are, that the number of births would drop about as much as if half as many men (and an equal number of women) were drafted.
I think “losing half a generation of each” would be less harmful than losing an entire generation of either sex.
I don’t think the decrease in birth-rates if both genders were drafted would be that much more significant than if it were all males drafted: regardless, there will be less people reproducing, since if only males were drafted, the percentage of females would outnumber men, creating a gender imbalance. I this gender imbalance would ahve a worse effect as well as a longer lasting one, than would the potential decrease in birth rates.
.325 (Luna) – I’ll respond better to this when I have time, sorry. BUT, can you give me some examples of how having a gender imbalance is a bad thing? You keep saying that you think a low birth-rate would be fine, but you’re not providing much evidence for why you are correct, just stating that I am wrong.
It’s true that the sex balance of a population can affect population growth. If your herd of cattle consists of one cow and ten bulls, a year later you’ll have one cow, ten bulls, and a calf — 12 animals in all. If, on the other hand, you have ten cows and one bull, a year later you’ll have ten cows, a bull, and ten calves — 21 animals.
That’s an extreme example, of course. To figure out how war might affect human populations, you could do a little arithmetic based on the casualty figures that Wikipedia gives for World War 2 (en.wikipedia.org / wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Casualties_by_country). Anyone feel like crunching some numbers?
327–Of course, that assume that the men would all go impregnate multiple women. Which, come to think of it, is not that unlikely (they are male, after all), but also that the women would be interested in nothing more than reproduction, vs an actual relationship…..
324- (Zallie)
Well, it is true that women as generally less physically able than men, but the very nature of war has recently changed drastically. There are still plenty of roles women can take in the military that aren’t on the ground.
I would gladly do civil service instead of military service, I do right now and plan on continuing. Working for the state department would be very interesting (I heard that there’s talk of a new division like the Peace Corps, to send infrastructure building US citizens overseas to strengthen other countries.) I’m not sure how I would feel about doing civil service to support a war effort that I disagreed with though, because it would still go to the same cause.
326- Gender imbalances are bad, because married men are simply less likely to do stupid things. It’s well documented.
As Zallie has said, a negative population growth rate is also bad, because things like social security collapse. Most developed nations have very low growth rates, a few in Europe (and Japan) are having trouble with declining populations. Underdeveloped countries have huge birthrates, but also high deathrates.
I’m not going to be crunching numbers for WWII, but I have used this iste before to get population pyramids for specific times.
census.gov / ipc/www/idb/pyramids.html
(329) Righto, I’ll supply two numbers: In the Second World War, the United States had 416,800 military deaths out of a population of 131,028,000. That’s about 1 person out of every 300. Enough to throw the population seriously off balance?
1/300 doesn’t sound like much, of course, but there’s the scale of the loss. Looks like the largest population loss was Poland, with about 16% (5,600,000/34,849,000), and the largest total population loss was the Soviet Union, with 23,100,000/168,500,000 (13.7%). The US didn’t suffer anything close, but the Baby Boom was a direct result of the war, no? So there are results from war, whether due directly to deaths or absence I do not know.
Sex ratios are often small but very important.
en.wikipedia.org / wiki/List_of_countries_by_sex_ratio
I’m surprised my comment was ignored. But, at any rate, if this is an argument about drafting/sexism/which gender is better, count me out. I know nothing of any of those.
We were arguing at our lunch table about Sarah Palin today.
.329 (Vendaval) – I’m not sure how I would feel about doing civil service to support a war effort that I disagreed with though, because it would still go to the same cause.
That’s a very good point. I suppose it depends on the reasons someone doesn’t want to go to war. If they just don’t think they are capable of killing someone, civil service is very sensible, but if they strongly object to the specific war on moral grounds, maybe not so much. However, even if someone attains CO status, they can still be required to serve your country. My grandfather worked on cattle ships crossing the Atlantic, and then as a test subject for the vaccination for HepB during the Korean War.
There are plenty of noncombat roles that women could play, I agree. I just don’t know if it’s wise to rely so heavily on women in an area that is traditionally based in physical strength. Certainly with advancements of technology, it’s becoming more and more possible for women to be as successful as men in the military, but I still feel like women are operating at a significant disadvantage and I don’t want the safety of our country to be compromised due to this.
Why do you think women should be included in the draft?
328 (Luna) – No examples for me?
324 (Luna) – In the post to which you are referring, I was stating that the loss of a large amount of young-ish women would have a greater effect on the reproductive rates of the US than the loss of a large amount of young men. I was not assuming that women would go out and artificially become pregnant, just remarking that today women don’t need men to have a child, which is the truth and not a matter of opinion at all.
—–
How does everyone feel about draft-dodging?
(333) Zallie — or anyone — do you think it’s possible for women to achieve completely equal status if they’re not subject to the draft?
I should add, this is a genuine question and not meant to put you on the spot in any way.
.334 – That is a really good question!
I guess I just feel that women are, in many ways, second class citizens to men already, and that requiring their participation in the draft is not really a good ‘next’ step. It just seems like saying, “No, you’re not good enough to be president without the entire country making jokes about your fashion sense and sex appeal, but you’re certainly good enough to die for your country!” I realize this argument (or one to it) could also be made for minority groups, who are included in the draft. However, the womenss rights movement is trivialized in a way that the civil rights movement would never be and never is. Making racial jokes is generally thought of as offensive, but many people treat the womens’ rights movement as a joke itself. When Hilary Clinton and Sarah Palin were running for president, a good deal of the coverage of them was of their wardrobes, their sex appeal (or lack thereof), how they can possibly balance being a woman and being the president at the same time, instead of on their actual campaigns and positions. While I didn’t think either of the two women would make excellent presidents, it infuriated me that their campaigns were reduced to fashion columns and articles about how to be a “working mother.” The past year has essentially opened my eyes to how far the womens’ rights movement has to go in America.
Back on topic, I just don’t feel that including women in the draft is a logical step. Of all the ways to create equality between the genders, this (sending women into dangerous situations) is perhaps the nastiest one. Women have been subjected to inequality for centuries, but now we’re suddenly required to join the military and die for our country? Thanks, that’s really doing us a favour.
In order for women to obtain complete equal status with men, yes they will have to be subject to the draft. As we are currently, I’m not particularly willing to die for a country that treats me as a lesser citizen because of my gender.
I’m really curious to hear other people’s thoughts on this.
324- So you’re saying that if a Communist country does something, the U.S. shouldn’t do it? China’s going to the moon, so does that mean we shouldn’t go to the moon? I actually respect these countries in that they treat men and women the same, unlike the United States. Also, I never said that more people dying would be a good thing. I would like it if you didn’t put words into my mouth.
335- The U.S. is not requiring anybody to go into the military, hasn’t since Vietnam, and most likely won’t for a long, long time. Including women in a new draft law would not have any physical ramifications, but rather psychological ones. I disagree with you that including women in the draft is not a good step to take. Is there sexism rampant in our society? Of course. However, if that sexism continues to be built into our legal system, it will never be abolished. During the civil rights movement, which came first: legal equality or actual equality? Obviously it was legal equality–actual equality still hasn’t been achieved. But legal equality, e.g. voting rights or the right to join the military, was absolutely necessary to occur before real equality could be found. Logically, to make the women’s rights movement more similar to the civil rights movement and hence more respected, legal equality must be achieved first. You can’t have a country that treats women and men the same, but has laws which discriminate against one or the other. The draft being one of the only examples of legal gender discrimination left, it must be fixed before equality can be reached for everyone.
Related: it’s a scientific fact that women are indeed different from men, both physically and psychologically. It’s not anti-women propaganda, but simple truth. I wish feminists would simply admit that and stop pretending women are men. Now, I do believe our society should grant women and men the same rights, but we can’t overlook the fact that different genders are *gasp* different.
.335 – Clearly, the draft is not in effect. I assumed that I didn’t have to state that. I will try to be more clear in the future so as not to cause you any confusion.
I don’t think the problem is that sexism is ‘built into our legal systems.’ It’s illegal in most places to pay a woman less than a man, but women still make roughly 3/4 of what men make. Laws like that have been in place for several decades, but in many instances women are still underpaid. The illegality of that doesn’t seem to have done much for women’s wages.
If women were already on equal footing with men, I would be more in favour of women being subject to the draft. However, as we are still lesser citizens, I’m not sure why you think the military is the best way to fix sexism. As I neglected to say in previous posts, the draft is not even in effect, so I don’t see how requiring women to register for the draft will fix much of anything.
Why do you feel women should be subject to the draft?
In response to your ‘Related’: Yes, this is true. And?
I think I’ve lost where the conversation is at, partly because it seems like we mostly agree.
I’ve figured out what I would do if a draft were instated- join the Coast Guard. I have no qualms about defending the US, but I disagree with some other branches’ active offensive strategies.
Alright, so today North Korea launched a missile over Japan into the Pacific Ocean. Thoughts?
Quoting the NY Times, North Korea claims it “was designed to propel a satellite into space, but that much of the world viewed as an effort to prove it is edging toward the capability to shoot a nuclear warhead on a longer-range missile.”
There has been a call for an emergency U.N. session. Relations between South Korea, North Korea, China and Japan are generally pretty testy anyway, this doubtless exacerbates the situation.
US stance : Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has ruled out any effort to shoot down the missile if the mission appeared to be a serious effort to launch a satellite. Rather, Mr. Obama’s top aides said during last week’s Group of 20 summit meeting in London that if the missile were launched, they would seek additional sanctions against the country in the United Nations Security Council, perhaps as early as this weekend.
I wonder if it was purposely done during the G20 Summit? More as this develops…
Hm. Apparently there isn’t any North Korean satellite in orbit. All the debris just fell into the ocean, including the payload, whatever it was, even though North Korean said the launch was “successful”.
336- I am very feminist and I believe that women are not men however- it is also my opinion that, despite differences, women are just as important to the armed forces as men are, and that some people are just more suited to doing different jobs within the armed forces and some of that can be dependant upon gender, but alot most certinatly isn’t.
337- personally, I don’t believe that the army is the best way to fight (ha ha) sexism, but i also belive that for laws and government procedure, men have to ALWAYS be equal to women in every department, or there are still sexist laws.
with the draft in general, I’d say that it should only be used if all else fails and we have little or no one in our army, however, I think that with army benefits, which include education, rebelious young adults, and extremely patriotic people, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
another note on the military— what do you alll think on the militaries “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy? I know they are trying to keep the peace between homophobic people and gay folks, but i still think it is a little unfair, especially since in a war there is already suposed to be a strong sense of comerades anyway and there must be better peace-keeping stratagies than plain ingnorance. I also belive it really dosen’t help social exceptance of LGBTQs and probably hurts LGBTQs who are struggling enough as it is to “come out”
also, what do you guys think about the way the Holocaust is represented and the way we learn about it today?
Personally, I’m kind of annoyed because in school and in many books, it only talks about the Nazis chaseing down and essentially killing Jewish people, when the Nazis did alot more than that.
remember, they were trying to create a “perfect” ayran race, a perfect Germany, which means they also supressed
LGBTQs
Catholics
Gypsies
African or in any way black people
disabled (mentally or phsically) people
and many others.
here’s why I think we don’t hear about thier struggles very much.
1. there were less of them in Germany
2. the Nazis went after the Jews first
3. many were harder to track down (Gypsies move around, Catholics and LGBTQs blend in, etc)
4. With many, the Nazis weren’t the only ones.
5. some are still discriminated against
with 4, many nieghboring countries and countries around the world openly discriminated against
LGBTQs
Catholics
Gypsies
African or in any way black people, so when the Nazis re-invented and voiced anti-semitism, it was a little more shocking.
with 5, in many countries the above mentioned groups are still generally discriminated against ( including USA on LGBTQs) if not even discriminated against in law.
thoughts?
340- G20 summit finished on friday, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization)is going on now
alot of stuff was done purposefully over the G20 summit. As it turned out I was in London during the G20 (note- this was NOT planed) and let me tell you, some of the news was pretty scary because we had walked by the buildings or down the streets the rioters targeted earlier in our trip. (thank god we weren’t staying in central London) there were also TONS of police all over the place and the shut down some of the tubes and National monuments while we were there. The ones that were open had hieghtend sucriety quite a bit.
the evening before and a bit during the G20, we wacthed the BBC news ( locally for once) and said, to the pictures of protesters beating police (and vice versa) and smashing banks- “great, we see you’re mad, which we would have anyway had it been a peacefully protest, now how does that actually help your cause? You live in a DEMOCRACY for crying out loud, vote for or write senators to help your cause and come up with a SOLUTION before being part of the problem.
on a very similar note, protesters were looting smashing and burning random buildings near where the NATO meeting is being held.
thoughts?
sorry for the double post and sorry for the long post, but I didn’t see Piggy’s post when I started.
Piggy- it wasn’t actually a satilite- it was really a ballistic missile
342- What? The Nazis did not “re-invent” Anti-Semitism. Everyone has hated the jews since the beginning of time.
343- Obviously. I already knew that. I suppose sarcasm is harder to notice in text than in speech.
They said they’d put up a satellite in 1998, too, but NORAD never detected it.
343- Well, the LAUNCH VEHICLE was a ballistic missile, what it CARRIED may have been a satellite for all we know. The first Russian and American satellites were launched on ballistic missiles.
344- yeah, i know. the Nazis just made it wildly popular in a country where it wasn’t so huge before.
not to mention, beginning of time isn’t quite right- first you need human civiliazitions, then you get to culture, then you get to religon, after which Judism (sorry if I spelled that wrong… i can’t spell worth a damn)was one of the first popular monothiectic (spelling again-word that means one-god-ed) religons, and before Christiantiy was popular they hunted and killed the christians.
And don’t even ask about the LGBTQs, everyone has hated us since before religon, and alot still do.
346- except it didn’t leave the atmosphere, was aimed at Japan, and no one has found the “satilliete” yet.
All I’m saying is that we don’t know.
347- Cool. I used it as a metaphor.
Sorry for the random thought but….
My Girl SCout troop is going to Seoul, South Korea, but my mom won’t let me go because of its proximity to North Korea and the incressed likelyhood of North Korea’s dictator to launch missilies toward Seoul. As she puts it, he is classifiably insane and thinks he’s a god, but knows he is mortal and is dieing. He also knows that when he is dead, North Korea will most likely not maintain it’s walled-seprate-from-south-korea status, and he most likely wants to go out with a BANG! if you get what I mean..
really sorry for the double post and sorry to bring back up a fairly exhuasted topic but…
The other day Vermont passed a law allowing same-sex marriage . I AM SO HAPPY!!!!! thats 3 down only 47 more to go. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:
351–Iowa has passed one too, I believe. According to the newsboard in the lobby today (very unreliable source, I know, as they think that a volcano is erupting in northern Alaska, which is completely untrue. The only active volcanoes in the state are along the Aleutian isle chain, for the most part, and none are in the north, they’re all south central/south east).
Anyway, it said Vermont and Iowa had just passed laws allowing same-sex marriage within the past week or so, joining I think it was Conneticut and one other state (forget which one)……So, I think it’s four (again, assuming the morons at the front desk ahve their facts straight, which is a huge assumption to make…….)
But, agreed, that is very good! Now if only the other 46/47 would follow suit….
yeah, and hopefully they’ll stick to it, unlike California. Prop. 8 actually kind of really dismayed us here in WA because we could actually, you know, move there and survive the climate when we finished school, and our parents wouldn’t be completely dismayed at us.
And it’s joining Massachutes, which I think is awesome because I have MIT pretty high on my list of dream colleges (I do have at least 3-4 years to wait, though, and that’s if I finish high school early)
sorry to keep bring up more exhuastive topics, but I have a story to go with this one.
I think that abstinance only sex-ed doesn’t work for a couple of reasons-
1. last I checked it doesn’t cover STDs
2. Last I checked it also doesn’t cover basic anatomy and functions, which are kind of important to know about (my mom keeps telling me horror stories about when she was a kid and there was no sex-ed and her mom didn’t tell her anything important)
3. there is a risk of people thinking about how much it just doesn’t apply to them.
my cousin was apparently one such person. Instead of going to college, he got married on short notice ( he had been engaged a few months, but the wedding wasn’t supposed to be until this july, and it was like last June or something) and a few months after that, his wife announced she had been pregnat for a few months, and now they have a daughter. If the birthday calandar is right, he’s about your age, Luna. (19ish)
not to dis anybody’s state, but he lives in Alaska, and I bet he figured abstinance didn’t apply because he was engaged.
He also became the topic of many “make good choices” conversations, which were VERY annoying (yeah mom, like I’d do anything THAT stupid, even if I were straight, which I’m not)
so, to put it humorusly, teach sex-ed sex-ed or make innocent younger cousins everywhere suffer.