This thread is a place for careful, clear, respectful discussions of difficult topics. It is not a place for having two-fisted no-holds-barred discussions.
MBers should be able to express their opinions without attacking others personally, and be able to listen to people who disagree with them without feeling personally attacked.
Easier said than done, of course. But MuseBlog is a good place to practice trying.
Continued from version 2009.3.
Okay, having enjoyed the luxury of being discriminated as Austria by Americans and as American by Austrians, I’ll give my opinion of the whole cultural thing:
Common sense is not subject to culture, but your perception of things is. For instance, most Austrians take our healthcare system for granted and let’s face it, the American one needs serious work. On the other hand, having a school nurse or a guidance counselor at schools or even the realistic opportunity to take AP classes is completely unrealistic for Austrians. You could list the endless pro’s and con’s here, but of course people love to pick around on the weak point of others (America is too full of itself!-No-one gives a slice of cake about Austria!, e.t.c…). This whole yattering about my country is better than your country is rubbish.
EES- Naturlich san die Schweitzer am besten, weil mir sie net verstehn! Dos haßt sie san leichter zu ignorieren. (-of course the swiss are the best, ’cause we don’t understand what they’re saying. That way, they’re easier to ignore.)
Suicide… should be legal. As for marijuana- what about making it legal to consume but illegal to import?
Or an even worse proposition: Illegal to consume, but legal to import.
That last suggestion reminds me too much of the early America’s “solution” to slavery.
(From last thread):
#
125
ibcf
in November 23rd, 2009 @ 09:54
22.3.1- Well, Piggy, you’re a Republican amongst a throng of Liberals, like (metaphor time
) a base in a cauldron of acid. You can only expect for there to be some fizz.
Personally, though, I like independents. Bases and acids burn holes in my flesh, and they’re both controlled by special interest groups and lobbyists…
*
125.1
Elias Eiholzer-Silver
in November 23rd, 2009 @ 10:07
The funny thing is that the democrats are have centrist policies, and what is considered “liberal†by American standards is considered “common sense†everywhere else in the world. For example, right-wing parties in Europe are shocked at the extremism of the Republican party, and left-wing parties in Europe laugh at the wimpy pseudo-liberalism of the Democrats.
We’re a sad bunch, all in all.
*
125.2
Piggy
in November 23rd, 2009 @ 22:28
I’m actually not a Republican, which will be a surprise to a lot of people. I agree with a lot of what they believe, but not everything; and I don’t like the way they’re running the party (see: special interest groups and lobbyists). So I’m basically independent.
*
125.3
Vendaval
in November 23rd, 2009 @ 22:49
There’s an important difference between Liberal & Conservative, Democrat & Republican. e.g., Democrats are controlled by special interests, Liberals are not.
“Independent†is annoying to me because it’s so very not helpful; can you identify yourself on a chart? I’ve found it to be much more helpful. For example, I’m in the libertarian lower left quadrant. (Political Compass dotorg is what I’m using.)
#
126
ibcf
in November 23rd, 2009 @ 11:58
125.1- Well, America has never really followed European “common sense,†has it?
And despite it all, the U.S. definitely still has the most representative government (which is pretty sad).
*
126.1
Elias Eiholzer-Silver
in November 23rd, 2009 @ 12:57
“Common sense†isn’t culturally subjective.
And no, as far as representative gov’ts go I’d have to give Switzerland first place. Direct democracy, every single referendum is voted on directly by every single citizen personally. And every single citizen can submit their own referendum, if they get a thousand signatures.
125.2- Sorry. Erroneous assumption.
125.3- Yes, I misused the terms a bit…and I am very slightly on the libertarian right, almost at the center.
126.1- I would say it is. Did Thomas Paine’s Common Sense make much sense to Britain?
On Switzerland–Does the referendum policy make it more representative than America? It’s still a very socialistic country.
As one of my teachers was fond of reminding students, socialism is a theory of economics, not governance. Same goes for capitalism. There is nothing intrinsically contradictory about a republic choosing to adopt socialist practices. Similarly, capitalism can exist under a variety of governments.
But there are non-economic elements inherent to the practice.
Ok, “common sense” is an ambiguous term. But whatever. Is this going anywhere?
As far as Switzerland goes:
The fact that any citizen, including teenagers, can launch referendums to change laws makes it incredibly representative. Of course, the referendums are then voted on by everyone. Switzerland is quite a socialistic country, but that’s a good thing. It’s not an economy of communism, if that’s what you’re worried about (the two are very different things), but it recognizes human rights and looks out for society- all of society. That’s what socialism means.
Anyway, suicide should be legal. You can kill yourself if you want to, it’s your right.
As for marijuana- it’s much less dangerous/harmful than smoking or drinking, is non-addictive, non-toxic (like acid, for that matter) and less dangerous than a variety of everyday activities that involve harm, recognized harm, that we still engage in knowingly. There is no good reason to ban marijuana.
Even though it’s hallucinogenic? I’m not against it, I’m just pointing it out. I personally don’t care.
What’s wrong with hallucinogens? I mean, inherently?
They’re rather dangerous. They make you see things that aren’t there. So someone on a hallucinogen could walk into an electric fence, and not notice it was there. They’d die.
Not really. You don’t see things like unless you really take a LOT of acid, and I mean a lot. With the usual dose all that happens is that your senses are amplified or slightly warped- smells become sharper and more pervasive, colours become brighter, music becomes clearer, etc. Its effects have been exaggerated tremendously by 70s culture media and the like. And yes, before anyone asks how I know this, I’ve done acid.
I will attempt not to berate you.
Isn’t that the danger, though? That people will take too much? And even having your senses amplified could be dangerous.
You’d have to take a LOT to get into any sort of automatic danger. And if someone’s stupid enough to take those amounts of acid without someone sober looking after them, they deserve what they get. Furthermore, regardless of the danger level, legalizing drugs (be it LSD, THC, or MDMA) would facilitate safer usage of said drugs; their production would be controlled and supervised by governmental health standards, their consumption would be controlled by certain centers dedicated to just that. Outlawing them is just asking for trouble.
How could having your senses amplified be dangerous? And are we going to outlaw everything else that could be dangerous? You’re more likely to get hurt by getting into a car to go to the library than by taking a blotter of LSD.
Acid doesn’t have anything to do with legalizing marijuana, though, and I’m pretty sure that marijuana doesn’t cause people to trip, generally…
Nah, weed just gets you high. The discussion shifted from legalizing weed to legalizing acid. There’s no good reason to do either.
Why should people be able to kill themselves? In my opinion that’s self-centered and careless. It causes a lot of grief to people who weren’t involved. Same with capital punishment.
In your opinion, exactly. If someone wants out, they should be able to. If someone is physically able to do it themselves, fine. If someone’s too sick to do it themselves, they should be able to ask for help.
Sometimes the pain is so great that going on is the worst kind of hell. Be thankful that you haven’t experienced that yet.
And you have, which is why… you didn’t commit suicide? *does not compute*
Yes, in my opinion! Why should I be expressing the opinions of someone else?
Any type of death punishes and hurts those not involved.
Because your opinion is not fact.
I never said I experienced suicide inducing hell. But many dear friends of mine have, and I’m glad that they were able to take the easy way out.
list of Western countries I dislike:
Australia.
List of Western countries I like:
Switzerland
Canada
Austria
Help me add to the list.
The UK is nice.
Why do you dislike Australia? Does that mean you dislike New Zealand too?
New Zealand is on my watchlist.
It’s all about censorship in Australia, which the new zealand government is thinking of.
5- Yes why? Koko52- not necessarily.
France- and french politics- are quite amusing from a safe distance.
Entire countries you dislike?
Well, One. and Mostly I mean “Government”
2.1- Economics and governance are very closely related, in my opinion. Governments can use taxes and welfare to redistribute power, or they can run monopolies on certain trades, or they can spend billions of dollars for bank bailouts…Politics=money=economy=method of running economy, such as socialism=government. It’s all about the money.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that while socialism isn’t what a government is, it is very telling of what a government is like, just as America is to capitalism. And SFTDPIII (If It Is).
Re: Suicide
I don’t see any point in illegalizing suicide. After all, if someone kills themselves, there’s really nothing you can do about it. It’s their problem.
Also, if people have the right to refuse medical treatment (which they do), then they have the right to kill themselves.
I recently had to do a persuasive essay for school on the pros of euthanasia. So…yeah. Fun.
*comes out of the shadows*
I agree. I don’t think suicide should be illegal, but the government should aid support programs that help sort out people’s feelings when they need it. I don’t think the programs should ever be mandatory, but they should definitely be (and are, basically now.) readily available to people who have those problems.
I mean, I certainly feel upset for people who commit suicide (In most cases.) but if you’ve made that decision, you’ve made the decision, and there’s really nothing the government can do about that beyond providing help before it happens.
But suicide, along with capital punishment, causes grief to the family and such, whereas when people refuse medical treatment, it’s their own choice, and they aren’t under the influence of anything. Along with the fact that generally people in the sort of condition to refuse it know that their lives will be miserable if they don’t.
Yes, but not being allowed to kill yourself is a basic denial of human rights.
Loreena, that is SO depressing. As long as we are talking about Democrat and Republican, would anybody like to take a short quiz that will tell if you tend to have more Democratic or Republican traits? I won’t post it if no one does.
*opinionates*: Well, I think euthanasia should be illegal but suicide shouldn’t…really, if you prosecute someone for trying to commit suicide, won’t they just want to commit suicide MORE? Of course, to be morbid this would probably help solve the overpopulation problem. ( Being a terrible person, I think this whenever I hear about mass deaths. Even tho I am very sad to hear of these. )
Euthanasia in considered to be a humane end for those who can’t get better and will keep suffering, whereas suicidal people are depressed and, whether or not they’re convinced of it, can often get help.
Euthanasia is, in my opinion, completely acceptable. Think about it: How many people really want to stay alive just to stare a the ceiling for a little longer without actually doing anything significant or achieving anything rather than for it to just be over quickly? Many old people who have lived out their lives would rather die sooner than later, if dieing later meant uselessly lying in a bed for the rest of their lives. Yell at me if you want, but I still have my opinions, and will always stand up for what I think is right, which, being a Catholic, is sometimes very difficult. For instance, once, at youth group at the church I used to go to, a person from Right To Life came and tried to make us all into anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia freaks. I tried to talk some sense into her about euthanasia, but it didn’t work. Is there anyone at all who agrees with me?
– Ducky the rebellious Catholic who is very angry and is going to go to the Rants and Complaints thread to get even angrier about horse racing.
Yes, post the quiz.
The thing with suicide is that it’s not a problem for anyone unless the person commiting suicide (known as S from here on out) fails. I which case S is far more likely to be hospitilized, first for injuries, then for physciatric reasons. S can be hospitialized against S’s will in these cases, and S is a pain in the ass for phycaitrists…. Then again,S can only be held against S’s will if there is significant proof that S will imediately harm S or others… It’s terribly hard to prove, but since S has just attempted suicide, it’s easier.
Then there is the question as to wether or not S is insane- sometimes S is, sometimes S isn’t. And if someone who is insane attempts to commit suicide and wants to die, should we allow them? That is the question for me. I believe that if someone who is certifibly sane (which cannot be determined by a phsycatrist, only by a judge) and they want to die, then they have that right, even though it will cause alot of pain not only to those who loved them, but to anyone who knew them… death is hard to deal with. However, if someone is insane, do they know what they are doing? I’m just not sure…
Not a problem for anyone????????? Family members of a suicidal person will be just as miserable and depressed (could lead to more suicide) as if the person had been ill or murdered.
SFTDP: Oops, I never closed the italics tag on my comment! Sorry!
“Could lead to more suicide” is a ridiculous and baseless conjecture.
The misery of family members is not a valid reason to outlaw suicide or euthanasia.
hark! a vendaval spotting! too bad I missed him
Clare de lune- someone who is clinically insane would not qualify for assisted suicide since they are not of sound mind. There are specific laws for euthanasia in the four places that allow it “legally and openly” as an assisted suicide website I found said.
“The only four places that today openly and legally, authorize active assistance in dying of patients, are:
1. Oregon (since 1997, physician-assisted suicide only);
2. Switzerland (1941, physician and non-physician assisted suicide only);
3. Belgium (2002, permits ‘euthanasia’ but does not define the method;
4. Netherlands (voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide lawful since April 2002 but permitted by the courts since 1984).
I tend to support this having read stories about X who has terminal illness Y and will die a long and painful death because of laws prohibiting assisted suicide. I do see the pitfalls though, the potential for malpractice and even murder…I think there’s a concern that people might only feel that way in passing (as in a drawn out illness, feeling depressed) but I’m pretty sure that’s not something you DO spur of the moment, much less something that happens spur of the moment.
I agree with you Ducky, don’t worry.
I know they’re not qaulified for assited suicide (which is legally where people get into trouble) but what about attempted suicide- do people go to jail for that? I know they get hospitalized, but once discharged where to they go?
I also agree with assited suicide and euthanasia. And I agree with Ducky- there is a difference between life and quality of life.
Where i really have trouble with suicide is when depressed teens and young adults who have alot to live for, even if they don’t realize it, commit suicide. That I find self-centered and very harmful to people around them, even if they don’t realize that either.
Not in America, no. If someone is proven to be insane they are committed to a mental institution, not put in prison (or that’s how it’s supposed to work, at least). There’s no specific place someone goes…it’s the same as being discharged from a hospital for any other reason, really. I don’t know if there’s someone who checks in with them, somehow I don’t think so.
It may be selfish, but you should understand that it’s not kids who think “i am sad today, i will kill myself.” they’re in a dark place for a long time. It’s very easy for any of us to say there’s no reason, but when you live it you feel differently. I’m not saying killing yourself is an awesome thing to do, of course, but I don’t want to condemn someone for feeling suicidal.
More proof that Oregon is the best state.
Or at least one of the better ones.
Hey there Axa, good to see you around!
1- Indeed, America is spoiled, fat, and wasteful. We don’t necessarily need to change our laws to be like Europe’s, but it’s true that we do need some common sense. Then capitalism would work just as well, or better, than socialism…
Suicide Issue: People shouldn’t have to live as vegetables. If someone’s going to die, we shouldn’t prolong their suffering with technology (plus it costs a lot, it’s part of the reason American health care has gotten so expensive).
However, suicidal angst-y teenagers are often making hasty decisions and poor judgments. If there is ANY possible way their mind could be changed, they should not be allowed to kill themselves. Generally, all young people have a lot to live for (whether they realize it or not), so they shouldn’t be allowed to commit suicide.
Agreed. It’s not that all the laws our government pulls out are bad – we as citizens just need to think. Speaking of capitalism, my friend is always saying how “capitalism is bad because the rich get richer and the poor get poorer”, and every time he says that I think, “OK, are all rich people rich because of plain good luck and all poor people poor because of plain bad luck? No, I don’t think so.”
The quanity of stupidity in american citizens (though not MBers) is appalling- not even our representive officals are known to think things through… Perhaps this is because of our school system (which is crummy but better in some places than others), perhaps because of our society, I don’t know.
Data plz- American citizens are no more stupid or less intelligent than citizens of any other country.
As far as IQ is concerned, possibly. But America’s academic system has let its citizen’s education down the crapper.
Luck has nothing to do with it: Capitalism is a biased system which favors the wealthy.
Rich people are more likely to succeed because they come from a wealthier background (evidenced by social class stagnancy), and know how to use money. Indeed, it’s not only the proper use of money but the investment opportunity itself (capital) that lets money beget money.
If you want more proof of the system’s bias, just ask- I have numbers and specifics.
Not to mention that with healthcare reform and the public option, our healthcare systems could become more communistic than chinas, where, to qoute my mother (who is a phycaitrist) “they have to actually pay before they see my colleges” I’m not sure if this is good or not, but my mother would sure appreciate it.
The healthcare reform is NOT communistic. It’s a socialist policy, which is accepted as obviously necessary among each and every advanced, post-enlightenment country, and quite a few 2nd world countries as well.
Except the US.
It certainly is not communistic. Neither was the USSR. the adjective is ‘communist’.
“Communistic” is also correct. Look it up.
You don’t seem to realize that America has some highly socialistic elements, and that it was founded with socialist concepts (of course not called that at the time) built into it.
Furthermore, Socialism and Communism are not the same thing, and setting Socialism as an antithesis to Capitalism is a false dichotomy.
Maybe it should only be legal for people over 18?
Laws banning suicide are unenforceable.
But those laws can still have effects. Some life insurance policies, for example, don’t pay benefits if the insured person commits suicide. Would they still be able to make such exceptions if suicide were legally unrestricted? Would it still be a crime to shoot someone who asked you to? (I’m not a lawyer; just speculating.)
My mom says that the reason it’s illegal is so that if the police come across somebody trying to kill themselves, they can stop them.
And they’d need a law to do that? Aren’t the police supposed to serve and protect everyone?
Rhetorical question, btw.
Hmmm. I never thought about euthanasia that much. I guess it is more merciful if the person REALLY WANTS to die instead of lying in a coma…think about it. In my religion you’re supposed to be merciful, but not help someone .. the act of participating in euthanasia. What a Catch-22. *feels smart*
Sorry Ducky, I’m against abortion tho. Altho I can see why people are for it.
“For” it? Sorry, but I don’t think anyone can be for abortion. People can be pro-choice, but not pro-abortion… being “pro-abortion” would mean that person thinks any woman who is pregnant and not married should get an abortion, wouldn’t it?
12- Yeah, i agree. I tend to ramble on to my [bored out of their minds] mother and friends about the fact that the majority of this nation seems to consist of arrogant, polluting slobs. That means you, Mr. Cheney.
And, in general, how are you going to go about stopping kids from committing suicide? My uncle did it. I mean, my aunt removed all the guns from the house so he couldn’t do it, so he hooked up a carbon dioxide machine in his truck. I guess my point is you can talk to them, but if they’re hell-bent on it, what to stop them from whacking themselves repeatedly with a paperclip? You can’t exactly shove the poor kid in a padded cell until he’s 18.
And on abortion: It should be legal BUT; you should have to pay for the entire operation, and a little extra, with the insurance companies backing away and not getting near it with a ten foot pole. Hopefully that should discourage most people from getting an abortion and put the baby up for adoption if they really can’t take care of him/her. Now, of course, I haven’t watched the news in a while or I could just be ignorant, but this could already have happened. If so, please don’t yell. I only recently started really watching the news, not just wishing I was living in Middle Earth.
Actually, padded cells are uncommon because people can suffocate themeselves. It would more likely be an empty cell with the person strapped to the bed (leather straps-metal’s inhummane and velcoro is to easy to kill yourself with/ get out of) Similar procedure for people with chronic, violent, unpredictable sesures, but with less stuff in the room.
13.1- The abortion debate… put it this way: austria is catholic. In a very scary, almost-the-same-percentage-as-Ireland way. Why is it that we can figure out abortion laws then?
14- The whole putting up for adoption bit is rubbish. You have to realize that giving birth is a big strain for a mother, especially if she’s fairly young. It’s not like it’s a quick job. Also, every mother should have the right to decide and not be forced into having an unwanted child. Besides; if you really had to go through the strain of having a child, putting it up for adoption would be harsh. Besides, there are already plenty of children up for adoption, especially in poorer countries.
Here’s my argument for abortion: While the baby may or may not be considered alive on it’s own right, I think the worst crime would be for a child to be born unwanted. Of course, there’s always the possibility of an adoption, but what if it doesn’t work out; imagine having to grow up with knowing that you ruined your mother’s life. Or growing up without a place, knowing only that your mother abandoned you. Besides, the mother shouldn’t be forced into having the baby for financial reasons and every mother should have the right to make her own choice, and not have some idiotic gray-bearded politician or pope or *miscellaneous other* who never has been and never will be in that situation take away your right to make that the choice or strongly limit your options. This could happen to any woman, as in, really any woman, like your sister or cousin or whatever. Would you want to force her to have a child she doesn’t want?
Try to put yourself in the place of a woman in this position; she’s found out a bit late, the boyfriend is long gone, the whole “paying for it” scenario you mentioned (she might not be financially well off), plus stress about career/future. Basically, stuck in an alley without a way out. Sounds like an ideal suicide candidate.
14- It’s a matter of giving them support. It’s not like you commit suicide because “you just feel like it”. It’s usually because you suffer from a serious depression, in which case you should be able to get medical help.
Here’s why Austria and other European countries can make informed, intelligent decisions: They’ve existed for much longer than the US has. They have a history of knowing what’s a bad decision, and what’s a good decision.
*laughs so hard can’t breathe* Austria and making smart decisions? A few better ones and this place would’ve been twice the size it is now. But I kinda agree; two world wars later you do have to be very good or very, very lucky.
Well, that’s why they’ve learned!
I think abortion should be allowed but discouraged, and not allowed too late into the pregnancy because that can be harmful to the mother and case pain to the soon-to-be-dead fetus.
There is a huge debate as to when the human nervous system is developed enough to feel pain. For instance, in pre-birth surgeries the fetus does not usually recieve anestisea unless it is restless, even though they may be able to feel pain. Scientists know that the nervous system is not FULLY deveolped until after birth, but since pain and quanities of pain registered are so subjective there is no way of measuring pain in fetuses and very young children—brain activity doesn’t work for various complicated reasons I can’t quite recal—so the fetus might not be able to feel anything. At all. and even if it could, having your entire body slowly squiswhed through your mothers birth canal during birth can’t be comfortable either, who’s to say it’s less painful than being vacumed out of your mother?
What the cake does it matter whether the child can feel pain or not? Is it all right to kill a person if you put them under anesthesia first? Of course not. Why would that change depending on a person’s age?
Because you can’t consider the fetus a person until a certain stage of development. After that, okay, no abortion. But the mother should definitely be allowed to have an abortion and have the chance to make the chance without being bullied into having a baby she doesn’t want.
Okay, then when is a person a person? What defines a “person”? Having its own DNA? Its own brain waves? Why would a two-month-old fetus be different from a seven-month-old fetus? At what point does a human become human?
Really: how do scientists determine the species of an organism? DNA/RNA testing. If an organism has the DNA of a panda, it’s a panda. If it has the DNA of a cat, it’s a cat. So, logically, if it has the DNA of a human, it’s a human. How can you not understand this?
DNA is interchangeable, you know.
SFTDP:
Giving birth isn’t exactly painless for the mother either, and could be very risky for the mother is she’s quite young.
Agreed. The person is still a person, whether it can feel it or not.
Not for abortions (nobody gets anestisea then) For pre-birth surgeries, which are uncommon, but occasionally neccesary for both mother and child.
SFTDP-I was replying to piggy’s comment.
SFTDP-I was refering to ” can be harmful to the mother and case pain to the soon-to-be-dead fetus.” of course it doesn’t matter wether or not people feel pain when they are being killed. The pain arguement is one of the points to the arguement as to when a bundle of cells sitting in some poor girl/woman’s uterus becomes human.
I personally am not sure about this whole abortion thing. I believe that if the mother cannot/ will not care for the fetus then they are likely better off dead. However, I don’t know when a fetus becomes human/when the cut-off should be for an abortion. And even when it isn’t human, I don’t think it’s lack of humanity makes it O.K. to kill it.
The article I was citeing leans toward research that is finding evidence that pain can be felt at a very early age and was discussing the implications of this reaserch(which is not yet conclusive) in relation to abortions and abortion laws which is why I brought it up. It certinally helps the consince of everyone involved if the fetus cannot feel pain.
You say that you might think that, if a mother will not care for her child, it is better off dead. In all fifty states a child (under a certain age) can be left at a hospital or other specified “safe haven”, at which point the child will be taken into the care of the state and put up for adoption, no questions asked.
According to the Merck Medical Manual fetuses during the third trimester can feel pain.
I think it should be banned, just not in very special circumstances, like they did in Romania when that 11-year-old girl got pregnant by her uncle.
16.1.1- Please don’t call the fetus a “child” unless you can provide proof that it is alive.
17- What makes a circumstance “very special”?
Is all rape special, or just incest?
Or just if the woman is underage?
What if the woman was drugged?
If it happened because she decided to go to a party alone?
If it happened with someone she was in a relationship with?
If she’s a sex worker, but it was not one of her clients?
Is birth control sinful?
Will the doctors be able to perform safe abortions if they only rarely do them?
What about the people who want an abortion more than they want to follow the laws?
I think that the only person who should be allowed to decide whether or not an abortion is warranted is the pregnant woman.
Personally, I am leaning towards thinking that life begins sometime in the latter half of a pregnancy, and that late-term abortion then should be avoided if at all possible. I’m not saying that the fetus is alive then, just that its potential for life is high enough to seriously consider. However, I think this should be accomplished by increasing access to contraception, and increasing the amount of early-term abortions instead of waiting.
I agree. What I hate is when religous heads get publicly involved (especially men who could never be in the situation to require an abortion) I’m fine with them influenceing members of their religon, but I think that lobbying for laws against abortion for all women, no matter what religon, steps beyond the line of separtaion of church and state. Believe whatever you want to, but don’t deny acess to a life-changing procedure to all people because of what you personally believe. To do so strikes me as rather greedy, though I understand why people attempt to force their religon on others (though they wouldn’t call it that, but it’s essentially what they’re doing).
That makes no sense. Think of this: rape is against the religious beliefs of Christianity. Does that make it wrong for the government to outlaw rape? Of course not.
And think of this: a sixty-year-old man cannot be preyed upon by a child molester. Does that make it wrong for that man to pass a law forbidding child molestation? Of course not.
Your argument for outlawing abortion, however, comes from your religious belief that a foetus is fully human from conception. Not everyone agrees, as you may have noticed.
But rape is considered not only religious but also morally wrong by practically allthe developped countries in the world.
And Clair’s argument does make sense. Can the pope relate to need to have an abortion? Of course not. Religion is not only a moral, but also a very personal issue.
That logic is invalid. You can’t say, “Prove it’s alive.” You have to rather be able to prove that it is not alive. But even with your faulty logic, a fetus is, by all scientific definitions for life, alive. Does it grow? Yes. Is it made of one or more cells? Yes. Does it respond to external stimuli? Yes. Can it reproduce? When it is done maturing, yes. What more proof do you want?
And the only thing it will ever grow up to be is a human. Do people ever stop to consider the baby’s point of view? Do people know what they may be killing? What if the baby grows up to find the cure for cancer or something like that?
What if the baby grows up to be the next Hitler? (Oh look, Godwin’s Law. Sorry, all.) See my point in the longer post for my response to “the baby’s point of view”.
*emerges from shadows once more*
Perhaps, but that’s beyond our control and past the point. The point is that every human should get a chance to live his/her life. In certain situations I might be pro abortion, but right now I think I’m definitely more con.
Yes, but that person will be unwanted. Besides, that foetus which could become a person will do so at the cost of the mother. What if there are complications at the birth? The mother could be scarred for life. I’d she keeps the baby, it’ll grow up or at least realize at some point that it is unwanted. Happy childhood, huh? If it gets adopted, it could turn out well. But there are also plenty of orphaned children or children from poor, developing countries that could be adopted, so this foetus is taking away the spot from one of them. Either way, this thing that can become a person will take away a good deal, no matter if it gives back or not. Also, a lot of people seem to miss the part that it’s mainly about the mother. Would you care more about the rights of the mother, who’d be forced into giving birth to a child she doesn’t want, or the unborn foetus which could become a human being at some point? A chance at life sounds nice, but not if the mother has to ‘pay’ (not meant in a monetary sense) for it.
Perhaps “alive” is the wrong term. Maybe “sentient” would be closer to accurate. Plants are alive. Animals are alive. That doesn’t mean I don’t kill and eat them. I don’t think humans should die at my whims because they are special, and capable of intelligent thought. There’s a point before which, more importantly than having the potential to become something human, an embryo or fetus is a few cells strung together being parasitical. And if the host doesn’t want it to continue, I don’t think they’re ending a life at that point.
A fetus cannot reproduce. An adult human can.
I would like to see proof that it responds to stimuli. I’m not an expert in this, and don’t know about it.
A three-year-old child cannot reproduce. But it is human.
And you can have that proof. Google it.
Do you have a problem with putting down non-human animals? I don’t see how a young homo sapiens is any different from a dog until it’s fully capable of thinking, and to think in a human way requires language; the idea of thinking in pictures is ludicrous. Until the specimen in question has traces of true human consciousness, I don’t feel that it should be considered fully human. Even so, it’s not like the child would realize what it was losing until it was 3 or 4, possibly 5.
And, of course, there are all the points that other people have brought up, which it would be redundant for me to re-articulate. Long story short, I am all for giving the choice to women.
18.1 — Now, now, let’s not flame religion. Flaming isn’t allowed here, and there’s a separate thread to discuss it on. (It being religion, not flaming. A thread discussing flaming wouldn’t get very far.
)
Because there is not proof that the non-human comprehends what is happening to it I think that there are a lot of cases in which euthanasia is humane: If the animal is in a lot of pain and has little or no hope of recovering.
The thing is, while it’s really awful that animals in okay health sometimes have to be put down, it is necessary occasionally. There are simply not enough facilities for all the stray dogs of today. And look what happens in places where they don’t do that. India is a case in point. Stray animals run all over the place, die horrible deaths, starve, and transmit awful illnesses to humans.
There’s not any proof that the foetus comprehends, either. As I argued before, it’s not sentient until it can think properly.
…and there aren’t human children running around without parents, and filling up orphanages? In exactly those same positions you just pointed out for dogs? Think through your arguments before sending them.
Why must it be sentient?
Yes, there are humans filling up orphanages, but being without a parent is not a reason to be killed. If it is the duty of humans to help “less evolved” species and we can’t accomplish that, the least we can do is limit their suffering. Please don’t accuse me of not thinking about my arguments. I do, you know.
Because sentience is a prerequisite for humanity.
They aren’t “less evolved species” they’re something that could develop into a human given the time. Besides, think of the mother!
Actually there is no such thing as a “less evolved” species alive today. Everything alive now is the current culmination of trillions of years of evolutionary progress.
Didn’t we use to have a creationist on here? That was fun.
I have no problem whatsoever in putting down non-human animals. Because they’re not human. Babies, on the other hand, are human.
I don’t understand how you can cite “true human consciousness” as a requisite for being fully human. A person in a coma is not conscious. Does that mean they’re not human? Or take the example of the boy who was raised by wild dogs. He did not have any sort of human language. Did that mean he wasn’t human? Did that mean he was unable to think? Obviously not.
Look, abortion is very simply and very inherently wrong. We’ve already come to the agreement that a fetus is of the species Homo sapiens. And we’ve come to the agreement that a fetus is alive. Therefore, in an abortion a living human is killed. Furthermore, that living human was killed without “permission” (it was not a suicide), and killed with full intent and premeditation. That classifies it as murder, by Princeton’s definition: “to kill intentionally and with premeditation”.
First of all, on a biological level, we all share the same genes and derive from the same ancestor. The only difference one could possibly make is at a cognitive or meta-cognitive level, more likely the latter.
Hence, since the definition of human that assigns moral rights not bestowed upon our quadruped cousins is based off of meta-cognitive criteria, it is not obvious that a homo sapiens raised by wild dogs is still human despite any lack of cultural context. However, the meta-cognitive ability may still be there. Nor is it “obvious” that a person in a coma retains inherent humanity. That’s why people in vegetative conditions get shut down, because they cease to be people. And nor is it “obvious” that a foetus is alive, due to the difficulty in establishing what exactly constitutes life, human life, and where to draw the line. No one would talk about “murdering” a dog (except for a few PETA nuts), even though we share the exact same genes and have all the potential of reaching anthropological succession as they do.
If you object to abortion (making dogmatic blanket statements in the process) at such a basic level than you should also, for coherency’s sake, object to putting down animals. Biologically, there’s no difference.
Fridgey, you say you see no difference biologically between humans and, say, dogs. So, since you have no problem with killing animals for food, it would follow that you would equally have no problem with killing humans for food. But that’s obviously not true, as I know you’re not a cannibal. That means somewhere in your argument there is a contradiction, a doublespeak. Please clarify, for the discussion’s sake.
There is no doublespeak. I’m simply pointing out the problem with postulating a biological basis for differentiating inherent ethical respect between homo sapiens and other animals. What you’re missing is the jump between the biological and the ethical, the naturalistic fallacy.
Furthermore, how do you know I don’t see a problem with killing humans for food? The reason we breed animals for that purpose is to not have to eat humans. But if we were to run out of animals one day, how soon do you think it would take society to create some criteria for choosing who gets “harvested” and who not? Given the examples of certain airplane crash survivors and anthropological findings of cannibalistic societies, I’d say not that long.
Okay, so you’re a cannibal. I withdraw my point and apologize for assuming.
Elias never said that he’s a cannibal, you’re resorting to ad hominem. He’s saying that, if it was necessary, he would adapt to eating humans, which one would have to do to survive.
Furthermore, you ignored the answer to your question.
Oh, good heavens. It was just little joke. I’m sure Elias can handle it–he’s a big boy, no?
It was more than a joke. Your intention was to ridicule my argument, missing (and ignoring) my point entirely. No matter that I blew your position out of the water and left you no wiggle room- at least I admit it when I can’t provide an answer and I don’t resort to ad hominems masked as unfunny jokes.
You still haven’t responded to your question’s answer.
What is consciousness? How could you tell if it is or isn’t?
That wasn’t flaming. Religon can be an excellent thing (esp. when it comes to dealing with grief) I just don’t think it should be a key player in legal debates.
No, no, no, I have no problem with your sentiments. Your last sentence was just getting a little touchy, and I’d prefer that we didn’t anger those among us who are religious.
Actually, since you can’t prove a negative, the burden of proof is on those who claim it is alive.
But regardless, simply “being alive” is not enough of a basis to assign human rights.
What I believe is that the person challenging a status quo must justify their actions. In the event of a single abortion, the status quo would be the mother giving birth to the child. Therefore the mother, in order to go against this status quo, must justify her actions.
Absolutely not. The status quo is entirely subjective to cultural context. Do homosexuals need to justify their lifestyles because they against the status quo? Do vegetarians need to justify their choices because they go against the status quo? Do libertines need to justify themselves because they go against the status quo? Talk about bigotry…
A foetus does not develop nerves until a certain number of months, nor has it any sort of mental conscience until a certain number of months. Of course, the definition of what exactly constitutes a human being is not quite the easiest thing to establish, but regardless of that, until physical harm is being is caused, it can not be said to be immoral to abort, and even then, a case by case approach to the situation would probably find it reasonable to abort anyway.
Physical harm is most certainly being caused in an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The fetus physical body is completely destroyed. Physical body + harm to said body = physical harm.
No, without developed nerves there is no suffering involved. Harm requires suffering, or it is simply a routine biological function. You know how many miscarriages happen a year and the women don’t even realize it?
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law: “Harm: loss of or damage to a person’s right, property, or physical or mental well-being”
Funny, I see no mention of suffering.
Playing semantics is not productive. If you had paused to think for a second, you’d have realized that the concept of “harm” has negative connotations because it causes suffering. Furthermore, had you put an inquiring tone to your post rather than sounding off like [No need for insults, please. Besides, you can make your point more effectively without them. –Admin.] I might also have told you about the biological source for the conceptualizations of harm, suffering and even morality- i.e. the existence of the
moralityempathy [retro-edited at author’s request. –Admin.] gene.“Damage to someone’s physical or mental well-being” is suffering. A nerveless foetus has no “well-being” to begin with.
What about abortion up to a fixed date? In Austria and several other countries, it’s legal for the first twelve weeks, time enough for the mother to realize it and decide and before the foetus gets to big.
A few people are radically againstit for religious reasons. My ethical problem with not allowing abortion is that the mother is practically forced to have a baby because of some small mistake. Maybe she was drunk- didn’t pay close enough attention during and after, and one month later she realizes that she’ll have have a baby. That not a bad thing to say, but considering the circumstances (see post 18) it’s practically a punishment for something that wasn’t her fault, or at least not completely.
After eight months, it’s probably a bad idea. But an abortion could be needed by any woman at some point, not just a sex worker for example. Do you want to have to become a mother or a father at some point? If you’re the mother, well duh it’s going to be traumatic. If you’re the father and she ends up keeping it, you’re going to have to send her money for the rest of your life. Not fun, especially if you’re not exactly rich.
Basically, I think every woman should be able to have a fair choice.
So let’s see: a woman should be allowed to kill her child if she was too drunk to realize what was happening. Interesting.
How can you set the date for immoral abortion at eight months? The earliest preterm child to be born was in gestation for only five months, and he is now a perfectly healthy person. But did he become human three months after being born, reaching the eight month mark? Or if you say that he was indeed fully human at birth, does that mean that a five-month-old fetus is also fully human? End your doublespeak.
Again, it’s neither “killing” nor is it a “child”. What is this, Jesus Camp? “The soul is created at conception”?
How the hell is it neither killing nor a child?
It’s not killing if there is no sentience, it is merely eliminating waste. It is not a child, it is a foetus, whose humanity is up for debate, as you very well know. Trying to put an emotional spin on this won’t work. Stop thinking in those terms and see it from a scientist’s (i.e. a realist’s) point of view.
Eliminating waste? Eliminating waste?! And how would you feel if you didn’t get a chance to live simply because you were a waste and so you had to be eliminated?
(Sorry, I’m not trying to flame anybody here. But that eliminating waste thing really got to me.)
Yeah, those are the most poetic terms, but the fetus isn’t a person yet.
I obviously wouldn’t feel anything, having never developed nerves. You entirely missed the point of my post.
It definitely IS killing. It’s something that’s living. If you think of it in terms of the life functions, it’s performing almost all of them, I think.
Also, not all of us are scientists. People have their own beliefs, and you’re not going to change how they think.
And beliefs are subjective, whereas scientific facts apply to everyone no matter what. Just because someone has a certain belief doesn’t mean it can’t be criticized, or that, heaven forbid, it might be wrong.
As a matter of fact everything I have said is purely scientific. A fetus has every characteristic of a living organism. This organism is of the species Homo sapiens, or human. It is living and it is human. How does that different from, say, a baby six months after birth? Is a two-month-old sentient? If not, it’s logically find to kill them as well–they’re no different from a child before birth. They have no more or no less “sentience”. Therefore, by your definition, killing a two-month-old is not actually killing it, merely eliminating waste.
Please just lay out your definitions of the terms you’re using, e.g., “child”, “humanity”, “sentience”, “life”, “kill”. We need a common ground on which to debate.
A foetus has no nerves until it’s rather far along the pregnancy. A born child does not develop the capacity for deliberation or going beyond instinct for quite some time as well. And the ability to create memories doesn’t happen until you’re 3.
Of course a foetus is living. But so is a plant. So is a unicellular organism. The problem here is finding where to draw a line to establish moral differences, not biological ones. Otherwise we could go on forever comparing “lives” to no avail, because, as I’ve said before, on a basic, genetic level, every animal is the same. Just because everything you’ve said is scientific doesn’t mean you’re not still thinking in emotional terms cloaked in scientific terminology.
From Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary.
child-a young person especially between infancy and youth
(this is definition 2a. I realize that 1a includes “unborn,” but dictionaries are inherently conservative, and I do not believe that it is correct, or what I mean when I use the word.)
humanity- human attributes or qualities
(I take this to mean “the quality of being human.” What makes us human is up for debate. Personally, I think that critical aspects include the ability to communicate and form connections via language, memory, civilization, and the ability to form and appreciate culture. For the past week or so, my AIM status has been “Music is what makes us human,” but I’m not going to say it’s anywhere near that simple.)
sentience- ability to be responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
but I always mix these words up, what I meant was:
sapience- (m-w has, roughly, wisdom. It connotes thinking, and maybe rationality)
life-an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
Kill, slay, murder, assassinate, dispatch, execute mean to deprive of life. Kill merely states the fact of death caused by an agency in any manner.
(which says, to me, that killing something alive is not necessarily immoral. Abortion might kill a fetus, depending on how developed it is, but it would not murder one.)
I didn’t set the date at eight moths. I meant it should be before eight months. Besides, see FS’s post; it’s neither a child nor murder.
Most fetuses at five months have the potential to develop a human consciousness. You can’t change every rule based on a single case of something being different.
I agree. If a woman is raped, she shouldn’t have to be forced to carry around a reminder of her traumatic experience for the next nine months of her life.
Oh, this could get confusing, I agree with bookgirl-me.
I agree. As for abortion in general, I think it depends. If a woman is pregnant and she doesn’t want the child for factual reasons – i.e, she can’t financially support a(nother) child – then the abortion should be allowed. However, if you’re pregnant and you don’t want the child – maybe because you don’t like children or something along those lines – then it’s your own damn fault.
But what about if the child is an accident? If contraception doesn’t work? I think it should be allowed then.
There’s a marvelous little thing called adoption. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Adoption is not the solution to everything.
1. There are already enough children in the world who need to be adopted, and few enough who want to adopt. You’re underestimating the number of people this would affect.
2. You can’t decide for these people that a life of neglect and abandonment is better then not having lived, you’ve never tried it. True, not all lives will be that way, but you have no proof that a majority will be happy. It is also true that I can’t decide the reverse of that, and so I propose that we give up on that point of debate, since it’s futile to discuss and there are so many other things to argue about.
3. Carrying a child is painful and expensive, as well as quite possibly emotionally damaging. You are marginalizing the mother’s contribution to carrying a fetus- giving the resulting child up for adoption does not mean that she has not had to make significant and difficult sacrifices for it, which should not be necessary.
Either that, or you’re punishing the mother for a moral choice you personally disagree with by forcing them to carry a child.
Oh, yes, carrying a child is painful and expensive, yes. But isn’t an abortion also somewhat painful and expensive? And certainly emotionally damaging–one of the most emotionally damaging things it’s possible for a woman to go through.
An abortion is not necessarily emotionally damaging (neither is childbirth.) I would like a citation for the claim that it’s one of the most emotionally damaging things possible. Anecdotal evidence is not proof- I can find examples of women who didn’t care about their abortion.
An abortion is not supposed to be painful- if it is, that’s likely because skilled doctors and anesthesiests have been scared away by the people protesting in front of abortion clinics. Any pain is not going to last as long as pain from childbirth (several months with many pounds of extra weight, the physical repercussions of either forcefully expelling a rather large child from one’s vagina or having surgery to remove it)
Expensive- I have been assuming that Planned Parenthood or similar would help with the cost of an abortion, and that support structures for someone poor trying to carry a fetus would be weaker, especially considering restrictions on diet, the need to go on maternity leave from work, and the need for new clothes as the pregnancy progresses. This may be unfounded. I really don’t have time to look it up.
I totally agree with Dodecahedron. That’s exactly what I was going to say.
Well, that’s assuming a woman has already given birth to the child, in which case we are past the issue of abortion.
Especially since she will actually be carrying around reminders for the rest of her life, more so with a child to take care of than not. How can you love something that is the result of an exceeding qaunity of physical and phycological damage (of which there is a HUGE amount in rape cases)?
the poor woman/girl will already have to live with nightmares at the least, depression or PTSD at the most, why make her live with a constant reminder that does not enable her life to go back to normal, or the way it was before she was raped?
Good grief. This is turning into a hotbed of arguments. EES, NO life is waste, even if it hasn’t been proliferated ( is that the right word? ) yet. Like soccer starr said, how would YOU like it if you never got to live? Think about it a different way: your best friend in the entire universe. What if THEY never got to live, and you had no friends? Not to say that you don’t have more than one friend, just hypothetically. Some people say that every woman has the right to a choice, but I say that every fetus has the right to a chance to live. Besides, if a woman was going to have an abortion because she didn’t want/wasn’t ready for a child, couldn’t she have a hysterectomy beforehand, or one of those things that makes you infertile for 5 years and get to choose again?
[Snipped hyperbolic image that triggered our spam filter. –Admin.] You can argue that no life is a waste (a claim that I disagree with, by the way), but that’s missing the point. These are not lives we’re talking about, at least not until a certain point in the development of the pregnancy.
I am not saying that some lives should be wasted, but instead that they are not lives. I disagree with you that everything that *might* become a life should be allowed to, and I think you’re on a slippery slope- why is a hysterectomy okay, if the woman could have had children otherwise, and created wonderful new people? If your best friend’s parents had used a condom, would you really want to be alone and friendless?
This has been said already, but I will repeat it one last time, slowly and clearly. If I had never gotten to live, I would not care about it. I would not know about it. I would not be alive to like anything.
If my best friend in the entire universe were aborted, I wouldn’t even know she was gone, because she would never have existed. I would have a different best friend. Things might be better or worse. Missing one person who could hypothetically have been be a best friend is different from having no friends at all.
Why does a fetus, that might be alive, matter more than a woman who definitely is alive, and who is going to have to endure at least nine months of expensive torture?
A hysterectomy is medical surgery. Surgery is bad if it’s not necessary, and it would force the woman to go on hormones to replace the natural ones removed for the rest of her life- also risky and bad.
I don’t think that “one of those things that makes you infertile for 5 years” actually exists. There is monthly and daily hormonal and barrier birth control. The closest I can think of is an IUD- those are inserted for 10 years. Doctors are often reluctant to give them to women who haven’t had children yet, especially of a prime fertile age, because they are fairly permanent. Also, if I recall correctly, they leave a tiny bit of the cervix open all the time, making one more susceptible to sexually transmitted disease, and if a doctor doesn’t trust you to be in a commited relationship that’s been tested, they could fear infection because you don’t need to for avoiding babies and therefore won’t use a condom anymore. Also, they are expensive, not everyone has even heard of them, and if neither the copper and hormonal-free version nor the one-specific-hormone plastic version works, there is no alternative.
Hm, the Swiss anti-minaret initiative seems to be passing. It will probably become a constitutional amendment.
Americans, how do you feel about this?
That seems extraordinarily discriminatory to me, and an outrageous violation of freedom.
Could someone explain what this is for the little backwoods girl who’s has no idea what you guys are talking about?
Do you know what minarets are? They’re towers built into mosques to symbolize the presence and power of Islam. Today the Swiss population voted overwhelmingly in favour of an initiative to ban the construction of minarets. The result was so strongly in favour of a ban that it might even become a constitutional amendment.
I overslept this morning and missed my trip to the voting urns. Grr.
Why? They have their mosques, their worship centers. The minarets would have been mute anyway. Their freedom to practice religion is not endangered.
Doesn’t seem very fair… I mean, that’s like saying Christians can’t put steeples on their churches. What’s the point anyway? What nuisance were they causing?
They represent Islamic power. Something that has no place in a post-enlightenment country.
Just because they’re an archaic symbol of power doesn’t mean that they should be banned. Muslims aren’t threatening to overthrow the government, are they? I doubt it, and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to practice their traditions. I mean, what will be banned next? Triangles, since they’re a symbol of the Christian Trinity and therefore are threatening to the welfare of the country? Or maybe anchors, since they were used as an early Christian symbol as well. And we all know about that bread and wine–we’d better ban those as well, for the good of the country.
Archaic? ARCHAIC? Do you even read the news? The minaret symbolizes oppression, sexism, religious discrimination, imperialistic fascism, and violent homophobia. Every homosexual or “adulterer” who’s ever been stoned, every innocent citizen who’s ever been blown to bits by a jihadist, every intellectual who’s ever been threatened (Rushdie) or murdered (Van Gogh) doesn’t deserve this foul, vile creed to be allowed to spread its poison in a blatant desecration of their memory and the very core of human rights.
Now, ideally, I’d like to ban the construction of any and all religious buildings. But taking it one block at a time is the best we can do.
They also represent every advance made in the Islamic Empire’s golden age. They represent the Arabic numeral system and what they did with it just as much. And medicinal advances that we wouldn’t be here without. And scientific advances.
And Christians have done some terrible things too. Christians would burn homosexuals at the stake. Shouldn’t their symbols be banned too?
The scientific progress was not caused by the religion, or that sort of mentality.
And yes, Christian symbols should be banned as well. Unfortunately they won’t be, but what does that have to do with the minaret issue? It’s a red herring.
It was caused by the religion. Islamic scientists today include scientific discovery as a form of worship of Allah. Islam (the religion) hasn’t changed much since the Golden Age.
You were saying the minaret represents all the bad things Muslims have done. They also represent the good things Muslims have done.
But the good things were not caused by Islamic faith. Just because Islamic scientists today include scientific discovery as a form of worship doesn’t mean that they were moved by their faith to engage in it- in fact, there is a widely accepted sociological theory that claims how the Christian mentality, with its concepts of objective morality, lawmaking and linear time was the only mentality that could have spawned true science the way we know it today- and lo, middle eastern science did in fact peter out very quickly.
Furthermore, the good things caused by any religion are entirely replaceable in a secular context, whereas many of the bad is caused exclusively by belief in that religion.
Not to mention that even if you ignored the philosophical reasoning, if you weighed up all the “good” that Islam has done and measure it against the bad, you would still get an overwhelmingly negative picture of Islam.
Not all Chistians… There happen to be a lot of gays at my church.
Not all Muslims do these things! Just some! Is that really a reason to ban the minarets that some KIND AND WONDERFUL Muslims might want built to honor their religion? OK, what if…I murdered someone? Would you want to deprive the rest of the Catholics out there of building a statue of St. Peter somewhere?
You’re missing the point. Islam as an institution has responsibility. Imagine if any other organization, a non-religious one, had done these things. The problem is that religion is, ultimately, an excuse for any crime, and this must end.
Hmm… making good progress in th past… having a lot of power… mostly staying sane… but a few going crazy and kill people.
Sounds like what a political party to me. Really, there are only very few Muslims that bomb and attempt to destroy Western civilization.
That is a false analogy.
What knowledge do you have to make the claim that very few Muslims are attempting to destroy Western civilization? The pervading mentality in the Middle East is that the West is the Devil and must be destroyed (that many journalists have witnessed). The pervading mentality among immigrants in Europe (that I witness myself) is that Islam is the absolute superior force and must be accepted everywhere.
Journalists have only witnessed those because those are the ones that attract news.
So? Does that mean they don’t happen?
So why not ban church steeples too?
I don’t understand the ban, but maybe I’ve missed something. Minarets are used to call for prayer, no? Five times a day, towards Mecca. They’ve also got architectural and cultural significance, and identify mosques. How that symbolizes a threat to Switzerland I’m not sure. Seems like a far right xenophobic attack from here. :/
Symbolic of all the violence Islam has spawned.
Islam has not spawned violence. Idiots have spawned violence.
For once, I agree with Piggy. Almost all violence is spawned by idiots.
Correlation vs. causation. Some ideologies make idiots more likely to be violent.
I would argue that Christianity has caused a lot more violence and destruction than Islam has. I don’t mean to be pointing fingers or anything (because both religions have obviously done their share), but if Islam has to pick up the tab, so should Christianity. The minaret vote is ridiculous.
Of course Christianity should “pick up the tab”. Only difference being that Christianity pretty much stopped being violent, whereas Islam still stands with an AK in one hand and a bomb belt in the other.
Idiots in buddhism don’t spawn violence. Idiots in judaism have spawned much less violence. Some ideologies have core values that increase the believer’s predisposition to violence. Islam is one of these.
But it’s complete coincidence that the religions you find susceptible towards extremism are also by far the world’s largest religions, with an enormous base of people in which can be found idiots?
Correlation vs causation, again. Go read the Koran, you’ll be disgusted.
Oh, trust me. There were plenty of violent idiots in Judaism. Most of the time, they were outnumbered and oppressed, so they couldn’t do much. Do you know the real story of the Maccabees?
Exactly, they couldn’t do much. Why don’t the moderate muslims outnumber and oppress the violent muslims if they’re so far away from what is true Islam?
It wasn’t the moderate Jews who were outnumbering them. It’s kind of hard to do much when you’re being massacred… Again, I will point you towards the real story of the Maccabees.
Possibly because they don’t want to get blown up?
According to Wikipedia’s “Religion_in_Switzerland” article, Switzerland is 82 percent Christian, and a Eurobarometer poll in 2005 showed that 87 percent of Swiss considered themselves spiritual to some extent. Although the national constitution guarantees freedom of religion, most cantons recognize official religious denominations, which they support with government funds. And in the past, Swiss citizens have specifically voted down at least one initiative calling for separation of church and state. I don’t think they’re likely to take action against Christian churches in the name of Enlightenment values.
I’m fully aware of that. I’m quite sure that the people who voted in favour of the initiative did so out of Christian indignation rather than enlightenment secularism. Even so, in this case I find that the end justifies the means. I’m not justifying the disgustingly local and xenophobic Swiss who voted for the initiative, but I am defending the original initiative and its implications on an ideological level. I’m planning on starting a referendum to ban the construction of all religious edifices, just to see how many signatures I get.
So, in this case the means (religiously motivated intolerance) is acceptable in pursuit of the end (inconveniencing and humiliating people you dislike)? Hm. I wonder how that will play out in the long run. I also wonder whether it is constitutional under Swiss law. We’ll see.
No, the end is a removal of religious influence in the country.
Looking at this from a different angle: what is the track record of forced suppression of religion or its expression, whether by law, by arms, or other means (assuming that the religion is an established one, not a minor cult)? Do you believe this ban will actually further your goals or will it help to radicalize the uncommitted and nourish resentment?
It’s not the suppression of religion. It is the suppression of a certain part of its expression, namely that of political-historical dominance and power.
What I believe this ban will do (if harnessed correctly by secularists) is to raise the awareness of the Islamic problem. It’s an invitation for all Muslims, moderate and extremists, to re-examine their CV. It’s an invitation for European countries to examine their own Muslim situation.
And finally: I know it sounds horrible but if this ban does in fact elicit further violence from the Islamic community it will do nothing but increase the level of anti-Islamic criticism present in the Western world.
Suppressing a religion begins with suppressing its expression (and I did include “expression,” though I may have added that part before you saw it; I honestly can’t remember whether I edited that line or not). In any case, suppression appears to be the long-term goal.
There has been a lot of research in recent years about human responses suggesting that a slap across the face is NOT an effective means of getting an individual or group to “re-examine its CV.” In most cases it will only further entrench existing beliefs. Considering the groups and the rhetoric that fueled the passage of this referendum, the barrier to seeing this event as the kind of invitation you envision will be even higher. Means do count.
I did see it, and I specified “a certain part” of its expression, since they are still permitted to wear veils in public, build mosques, gather for prayer, and remove their children from the Catholic or Protestant religion classes at schools. This part of expression is, as I said before, the one most explicitly imposing, and most symbolic of Muslim expansionism.
As far as the second paragraph goes, I said before that the motivations behind the voters choice is not beneficial. However, the result can be harnessed by secularists (again, I’m repeating myself) to provoke a higher level of humanitarian consciousness and criticism.
My statement would be the same for “certain parts.” What is the demonstrable harm caused by minarets specifically? “Imposing” and “symbolic” is a value judgment. What is there to prevent some other expression from being defined as equally symbolic?
And I realize you commented earlier about the motivations of most voters. I was merely pointing out that the association will be extremely difficult to overcome. In practical terms, how do you think the secularists can manage such a Herculean task?
The intention was to limit the manifestations of the institution, the abstract ideology of Islam, while maintaining the individual’s right to aggregate in places of worship. Minarets go, mosques stay. The minarets are interpreted by the Swiss as an imposition on Swiss culture- they are tall, clashing with the landscape and the architecture. They are more visible- hence, show a stronger presence of Islam.
By resisting the urge to criticize Switzerland for being “undemocratic” (when in fact the opposite has occurred) and using the voting as a sign for the Muslims to pull their act together. Something along the lines of: “There will be no acceptance of Islam unless you eradicate the violent factions within.”
They have no reason not to be there. The muslims in Switzerland are posing no threat. They aren’t going around killing everyone, are they? They have just as much a right as anyone to have a house of worship.
Ouch! Unfortunately, Islam is present in just about all post-enlightenment countries. Are you going to propose it be stamped out everywhere?
Also, what are your thoughts on the French ban of headscarves/burqas in French schools?
The French ban of headscarves proved to be very helpful in integrating the Muslims into French society and eliminating tension. The French spawned the Enlightenment- they’re not going to stand by and see such retrograde things as forcing headscarves on women.
What about the women who want to wear their headscarves? Should yarmulkes be banned as well?
You can wear what you want, but religious symbols should stay out of the public spectrum.
I think it’s disgusting. It’s a violation of human rights to worship what they want. And I still don’t understand the motive. Banning someone from building a mosque is likely to make them more angry, yes?
The mosques haven’t been banned, only the tower that would interfere with the Swiss panorama.
Then why have you not banned all buildings taller than, say, a story? Y’know, so nothing “interferes with the panorama”.
As far as the nationalists are concerned, it’s an architectural and aesthetic question. Arab architecture interferes with Swiss culture.
As for my position, a minaret, being visible, means that Islam is visible. And Islam is not to be tolerated.
Side Note: Would it be Constitutional in the US for the government to endorse a philosophy (this may not be the best word), like Secular Humanism? Or even something far more simple, like “Be excellent to All”?
Secular Humanism was the ideology and philosophy that defined the way the constitution was put together, i.e. all the authors and politicians involved were secular humanists.
Well, yes, the founding fathers were Secular Humanists, or probably would have identified with those beliefs if they were alive today.
But could congress pass legislature endorsing a specific philosophy?
How would anyone feel?
Hm, I’d endorse it. Although that’s not really the point of philosophy, they don’t become “official” parts of government.
If Congress tried, religious fundamentalists would be all like, “oh noes! now everyone will be having underage sex and killing people!” because they fail to understand secular humanism. “Be excellent to all” would probably ignite debate about whether it’s part of the 10 commandments, and failing to separate church and state, and there would be people who disagree, saying things like- should we be excellent to murderers? (This is why I hate people. :/)
Elias, if I may ask, why are you so vehemently anti-religion? I realize full well that you personally are atheist, or whatever term you want to use. But why are you so against other people’s religions, against their choice to, in your eyes, waste their time and be idiots? How does that affect you so greatly?
(“atheist” is a noun. “atheistic” is an adjective, and should be used to describe “you”. Or you could say “you personally are an atheist”.)
Actually, I think he’s an antitheist. Which is why it matters what he calls it- an atheist simply does not believe in god. An antitheist goes around trying to convert others.
Because it’s a cancer. It slows down scientific progress, and it permits foul people to do vile deeds unpunished. Because I need to live in a world wracked by religious violence and brainwashed people who can’t even think critically or use logic. It affects me greatly, but only because I’m not an egotist.
What if no people in power had a religion, but a minority of people with very little power were religious? A minority small enough that they couldn’t make a difference in the government, but large enough that you’d know a few of them. Would you continue trying to stamp it out?
Fridgey, I hope you realize that you live in a religion of your own. Yes, you come from a long line of people who think exactly the same way you think, practice the same behaviors as you do, have the same pride in their thought that you have. And you’re obviously quite zealous in you beliefs. Taking a step back from things, you’re extraordinarily similar to the people you despise. Different beliefs, sure, but same mannerisms. You believe that your way of thought is the only correct way of thought, you try to convince people of this all the time, you cite various writings to back up the things you say, you’re even trying to force people out of their belief systems and into yours. This just strikes me as ironic.
It’s not a belief system. You completely misinterpret me. I very rarely make affirmations or knowledge claims- more often I merely point out that other people’s claims are incorrect. Skepticism, critical thinking and realism is not a belief system. I was not indoctrinated. I back up my arguments with logic, rationalism and empiricism, the only method of ascertaining factuality. I do not rely on dogmas or asking for “respect”, nor do I pathetically attempt to discolour the opposing viewpoint by twisting it into a parallelism of what the opponent is criticizing. You realize the absurdity of calling “skepticism” a belief system?
I do not believe that my way of thought is the “only correct way of thought”- I fully recognize the possibility that I may be wrong, I’d be a horrible proponent of science otherwise. However, I strike out with fervor against people who think they have found the truth, incorrectly so, in religion or otherwise. People like yourself.
Claiming other people are incorrect is making a knowledge claim. You’re claiming that you you know they are incorrect.
No, I’m pointing out fallacies in their thinking. Anyway, red herring. Piggy accused me of having an equally affirmative and proactive “belief system” as those I was criticizing, which is entirely untrue.
No, you most certainly do have a belief system. You believe that logic and reason is the only way to ascertain truth, and you believe that religion is inherently incorrect and evil. Not “belief” in the religious sense, but “belief” in the same sense that I believe the theory of evolution to be true or that I believe gravity to exist. You can use whatever terminology you want, but from my perspective, based on what little I know of you, you have a lot more in common with ultrareligious types than you think you do. Very religious people hold their beliefs in extremely high regard and believe that their way is the only way to truth, just as you believe your way (logic and reasoning) is the only way to truth. You are a skeptic, yes. This means you value skepticism as a virtue, for lack of a better word; just as, say, a Jehovah’s Witness values evangelization as a virtue. Different beliefs, different values–but, setting aside these differences, the same mannerisms and zealousness. Just as fervent Muslims may lash out against people who, in their eyes, have incorrectly found truth, so too do you lash out against people who, in your eyes, have incorrectly found the truth. I find these parallels extremely fascinating–in general, not just in your specific case. Most atheists/antitheists I’ve talked to think that they’re individualistic, that they’ve reached their conclusions on their own, that they are correct and everyone else is wrong; turning a blind eye to the fact that there are thousands of people with the exact same beliefs, beliefs which have been instilled into them via their environment, however indirectly. More or less, you’re fundamentally the same as the people you hate, Fridgey, though you’re unable to see this due to the fortress of words you’ve built around yourself.
Ah yes, now I’m blind.
The difference is that if there were evidence to support a religious claim, I would change my mind. If the evidence shows that I am wrong, I change my mind. Religious people never change their mind.
Just because I am as fervent in rhetoric as many religious people doesn’t mean I have an analogous “belief” system. And I despise the term “belief”. I don’t base my life on beliefs. I base my life on probabilities and empiricism.
This is pathetic. It’s a huge fallacy.
I’m sure that if any religious person found what he considered substantial proof that his own religion was wrong and another was correct, he would change his mind as well. However, most religious people hold their own beliefs in high regard, and thus they won’t change for anything but overwhelming proof. Just as you stand firm in your beliefs if you see no overwhelming proof for some other belief. And I don’t care whether you enjoy the term “belief”, because that’s what it is. That’s what everything is. I believe I’m sitting in a chair right now. I believe I have to go to school in a little while. I believe Twilight is a terrible book. And I believe you’re getting a bit touchy, yes? I don’t appreciate being called pathetic, as you are doing by calling what I say pathetic.
No, religion is based on the attitude of belief without evidence. Evidence undermines faith, this has been a core argument in theology. Religious people will not change their position based on evidence. The Creationists should be proof enough of that.
No, belief is not “what everything is”. You are arguing a meaningless case of semantics with no epistemological knowledge about what the difference between “knowledge” and “belief” actually is.
You are being pathetic. Apart from the enormous fallacy within your argument, that of a false dichotomy, the very fact that you are using this argument in the first place is fallacious- you are trying to undermine my arguments by painting my position with hypocrisy rather than confronting my arguments themselves, an attempt driven, I am sure, by a personal dislike for me. Don’t worry, it’s entirely mutual.
I am in no way trying to undermine any of your arguments; I am merely attempting to have an interesting discussion with you.
Religion is based on evidence just as any other belief is. Muslims believe what they believe because they see evidence towards their beliefs. I believe what I believe because I see evidence towards my belief. You believe what you believe because you see evidence towards your belief. Furthermore, I am not arguing semantics at all, though you are. I call it belief because that’s what it is, in my opinion, while you have repeatedly said how much you hate the term. Call belief what you will–a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But I can see you’re just going to continue insulting me, so I suggest we just put this topic at rest.
Of course you’re attempting to undermine my arguments, why else shift the focus of criticism?
Defining terms is essential to debate. Your definition of belief seems to be very different than the epistemological one.
And as I said below, religion relies on the absence of evidence to empower the concept of faith. This has been the cornerstone of theology in most Judeo-Christian religions. Of course, there are many who claim that there is valid evidence to support their religion. These people either do not know what really constitutes evidence, or have severely deficient cognitive capacities when it comes to critical thinking.
We can let it end here as far as I’m concerned. However, I am not insulting you- rather your arguments.
I “claim” that there is valid evidence to support my religion. So I think you’re calling me either ignorant or stupid, yes? I don’t appreciate that. In any case, I’m not going to continue to be insulted by you, Fridgey, and I would appreciate it if you tried to break the habit of disguised ad hominems.
We can take it to the religion thread, where you can provide what evidence you think there is for Catholicism, and I will show you step by step how it does not constitute “evidence” at all. Don’t worry, I’ve probably heard them all before.
The term I used was “lacking cognitive abilities when it comes to critical thinking”. Anyone who accepts a religion suffers from this.
I’m seeing a lot of “argument by assertion” here:
“Religious faith is not based on evidence.”
“Is so!”
“Is not!”
What I’m not seeing is anything to back up the arguments — examples, for example.
The most influential theologians, for example Luther and Aquinas, to name two, argued that the absence of evidence was crucial to faith, that presence of evidence would undermine religious faith. Verily, religion cannot attempt to rely on empiricism to justify itself, it wouldn’t last 2 seconds.
It sure is getting hot in here….
Yes. Piggy and Elias, you seem to virtually yell at each other a lot.
(25, 26) Disagreement is not the same as flaming. And in spite of a couple of touchy moments, they haven’t been yelling, either.
yeah. THIS IS YELLING. this isn’t yelling.
list of
WesternDeveloped countries I dislike:Australia.
Switzerland
List of
WesternDeveloped countries I like:UK
Canada
Austria
Japan
[Edits made by Second-Thoughts Gnome per 28.1.1.]
Japan is a Western country?
Let’s change that to Developed.
What’s your opinion on Italy?
Need more Data.
what’s wrong with Australia and Switzerland?
Australia has really really bad problems with freedom of speech.
Switzerland was moved down because of the ban on minarets.
By the way, there is a Wikipedia article on the “Minaret controversy in Switzerland.”
This does really show just how independent the citizens of switzerland are. Most religious organizations seem to dislike a ban, NGOs like the ban, the Federal officials dislike a ban, and it might be illegal under international law. At yet it passed.
According to the Wikipedia article, voter turnout for this initiative was 55 percent. That’s high for Switzerland. With an average of seven elections every year, many people get tired of voting and stay home. That’s one problem with direct democracy. (Another is that people can be extremely shortsighted, as some of the initiatives in California have shown.)
Hm, making judgement from the small amount of reading I’ve done, it seems Switzerland should be more concerned with the violence and extremism in the far right than with the 4% of its population that’s Muslim, and seemingly harmless at that. I mean, really. Four minarets in the whole country? What does that matter?
Are there any people here who are against homosexuality? I’ve asked a lot of people (not here on the blog) and I haven’t met anyone who is against it. I’d like to understand why some people don’t agree with it.
I’m not against it much. I just dislike PDAs involving homosexuality in the same way I dislike PDAs in general – do I really have to walk past the same couples kissing in the same spot at the same time, every day for five days of the week?
I’m against PDA’s in general too. This couple is ALWAYS making out right near my locker. No one needs to see that.
And don’t they get bored? Move to somewhere else, for the sake of my eyes…
What’s a PDA?
Public Display of Affection.
Personal Display of Affection – for example, two people kissing practically in the middle of a school hallway.
Woop, that should have been “Public”, not “Personal”.
I’m for it- I mean, people should be allowed to love, marry, etc. anyone they want.
I think some people are against it for religious reasons, or because of general prejudice in the community. Which stems, of course, from religious reasons, generally, or because people think it’s weird. I find it extremely discouraging when a person does something unique and is told, “that’s gay!”
I know! One time we were all doodling on the board during free period and one guy drew a flower or something and a couple of people shouted out, “that’s gay!” I was so disgusted…I mean, first of all, gay has always had a very bad connotation when in fact I do agree with you I think everyone should be able to marry or love anyone they want and second of all why the cake is drawing a flower on the board “gay”?
Meh, don’t worry about it. It’s become part of the language and has taken on very different connotations. I’ve never met a gay person who was offended by the use of it.
Well, meet one now (that’s me, by the way.) I’m not highly offended by the term, but I feel it perpetuates both an often connotatively negitive seterotype and slows people acceptince of individuals who just so happen to be homosexual, who are often seen as a group but not as individuals.
A quick scroll through past Hot Topic Threads will yield at least one discussion I remember. with a MuseBlogger named Donaldo. As far as I recall, he believes that homosexuality, not homosexuals, is the evil. Hate the sin love the sinner? Although there’s still no reason there, besides religion.
Ted Haggard hated the sin. But damn, did he love the sinner.
TMFA, I would like to know your criterion for the list because japan is messed up with regards to gender issues/equality, racial issues, immigration issues, etc. There are many good things about Japan but the things I mentioned are often glossed over.
Hullo, Zallie! Glad to see you again, too!
I think this conversation about Islam is very interesting. I read the thing about the minarets on another site, and was going to ask Elias what he thought of it.
There is definitely a difference between America and Europe with regards to issue with Muslims that I gather is very much influenced by immigration issues (something that comes up again and again in news stories about the UK and France) but it’s something that I can’t at all say I’m well versed in…While I don’t agree with this ban, there is much more to the issue that I don’t think Americans as a whole are fully aware of. Interaction with the Muslim community is different in Europe as far as I’ve gathered, including things like Van Gogh’s murder as Elias mentioned or the ban on burquas as Zallie mentioned. it seems a very complex issue that I would like to read more about.
I just go with what I feel like. I’m really impressed with Japan’s education system right now, so they get on my good list. I’m mad at switzerland about the ban, so they get on my bad list. It’s really arbitrary
ha, nothing wrong with that! I was just curious.
Straight on. The Islam problem is a lot more complex than just something to be waved aside with a “coexist peacefully!”
Read up on the murder of Theo van Gogh, the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Jyllands-Posten cartoon riots… At least Christianity has adapted to the Enlightenment and is no longer killing scientists in Europe. Islam is still stuck in the dark ages.
I beg your pardon??
Islam is stuck in the Dark Ages!!!!! At least they have requirements of daily washing.
As far as human rights is concerned, Islam is still stuck in the dark ages.
Some Christians are, however, killing abortion doctors in America. Or killing homosexuals/ transgenders in America.
Of course. And Christianity is also a great evil. But this discussion is about Islam, and since I am not a Christian, bringing up Christianity is completely irrelevant.
Good grief. The KKK? Because they shouldn’t be doing that. <- understatement of the century
Just random fundamentalists. Like, super extreme fundamentalists.
Would you say that those are all due to the ethnic and religious homogeneity?
Data (CIA Factbook):
Japanese 98.5%, Koreans 0.5%, Chinese 0.4%, other 0.6%
Shintoism 83.9%, Buddhism 71.4%, Christianity 2%, other 7.8%
note: total adherents exceeds 100% because many people belong to both Shintoism and Buddhism (2005)
I’ve always found those numbers to be amazing and kinda weird, I suppose because I’m from New York.
Japan is willfully homogeneous. Or at least, their government strives to be. Officials in power have stated as much on record, that they don’t want more foreigners etc which is really nothing new for Japan. They have had a surge of south american (mostly brazilian, I think) immigrants recently, many of whom are actually at least in part of japanese descent. There’s this policy now in which said immigrants will be paid to leave Japan and never come back. I don’t remember all of the provisions, I just know that was in there. The purported reason is to save blue collar jobs for “native” Japanese citizens (in itself a shoddy reason) but the real reason is that they don’t want foreigners around.
There’s also a huge double standard as far as mixed race people go. I’ve read that it’s very fashionable and hip or whatever and there many half japanese people in their entertainment industry. but in schools those kids are bullied. on that subject, japan might churn out good test scores but there’s no way I’d ever want to be in a japanese school system. I’m sure most people have heard about cram school (juku) and there’s just so much more pressure. And like I said I’ve gathered there is quite bit more bullying in schools, not even for racial things, for anything.
If Japan hadn’t massacred all the missionaries and isolated themselves I do think they would be significantly more Christian.
……and now I’m gonna stop.
but believe me I think that’s freakin crazy, for basically the same reason (california’s pretty diverse too)
Back on the minarets… racial homogeneity has a lot to do with it. the melting pot metaphor is worn beyond repair but it does hold true. Other countries haven’t had the kind of immigration that we’ve had for the same amount of time, and I think it could be argued that they’re going through nativist movements similar to those in the 1800s/1900s here.
1) Islam is not a race.
2) Switzerland is much smaller and has much more to protect than the US. Comparing the two is unhelpful.
Wow, that’s very interesting about the Japanese laws, also troubling.Yes, I have heard about juku, it sounds so unhealthy!
I don’t think Axa was saying Islam is a race, I think she was referring to racial homogeneity in Switzerland.
“German 65%, French 18%, Italian 10%, Romansch 1%, other 6%”
Also, while size is very different and a factor, saying one country has much more to protect than another seems blatantly biased to me. Furthermore, I’d argue that Axa’s correlation of American nativist movements in the 1800s to modern troubles in Switzerland and Japan is very true. Still, there are too many ethnically motivated attacks in the United States today. We’ve come a long way though.
The US still has many job opportunities and much physical space to occupy. Switzerland does not.
Many job opportunities? Tell that to the thirty million jobless folks here. I think they’d have to disagree.
oh yes I know, I actually thought I should clarify that but I was rather lazy about it and just left it. I’m not sure how else to refer to immigrants who are muslims since they are obviously a diverse groups themselves and from various countries.
32.1- Japan has an excellent education system. Most of the Japanese kids in my class can do Algebra and know the histories of most world cultures and Darwin’s theories down to the last comma.
We actually started talking about that minaret ban in French class. Seems pretty bigoted to me…
Elias – Take a look at the piece on the minaret ban on fivethirtyeightdotcom. (Feel free to remove that “link” GAPAs.) The more a person affiliated enself with a religion, the more en supported the ban. There’s a pretty high correlation.
I’ve addressed this before. I realize that the main motivation behind Swiss voters was xenophobia. My motivation, however, and that of the guy who proposed the campaign, was secularism.
Then why not a more blanket ban like the ban in France on any ostentatious religious symbols? Why specifically attack Muslims?
Because the Swiss are not as enlightened as the French. It’s still a very Christian country.
Yeah. Exactly.
As for homosexuality, I think people should have the right to marry whomever they want. My social studies teacher says that there must be SOMETHING we’re doing now that people will wonder why on earth we did that in 2009 when they’re in 2050. Like we wonder why blacks and whites were legally segregated and why pregnant women couldn’t get jobs. I think the thing we’re doing now is not allowing gay marriage; it’s unfair. My religion prohibits me from being homosexual myself ( luckily for me I’m straight ), but that’s not a reason to deny rights to the other 50%.
The black segregation is the same example I use to explain to everyone why it’s so ridiculous that homosexuals cannot marry. It just doesn’t make sense.
Interestingly, quite a few Americans don’t actually believe that interracial marriage should be allowed. People are stupid…
data plz
A Gallup poll showed that 17% of Americans disapprove of marriage between blacks and whites. (I have the link, but I figured that the GAPAs wouldn’t want it.)
Found it. But you have to realize that a lot of that is due to the older generation’s opinions–cliched as the excuse is, they grew up in a different time. Are they somewhat racist? Of course, but that’s how their environment raised them to be. I have a feeling that once the current “young” generation becomes the “normal” generation we’ll be seeing that number fall drastically. Of course, it has been falling already, but not by enough.
I have a question, it’s not meant to attack you or your religion. If you realized that you were homosexual, would you suppress your homosexual feelings, or would you cease to practice your religion?
I would probably supresss my homosexual feelings, but more because I’d feel weird to say I was homosexual than because of anything my religion said about it.
And why would you feel weird to say you were homosexual?
Some people (this is a side note by the way) ask me why it’s important to be married (esp. since I’m lesbian) For some, it’s acceptance in the eye of thier religon(s) For me, it’s acceptance in the eyes of the law (the gov. has not really been kind to homosexuals in america in the past) Married people get hospital visitation rights, taxed differently, and divorce rights. gay people don’t get any of that. It’s not all really a big deal to me (except hospital rights and childcare rights) It’s just that I feel that until the government treats LGBT people equally, not many will truely believe LGBTs to be equal (which we are, thankyou.) We’ve come a long way since the 60’s and 70’s, and a longer way stil since the victorian ages, but we still aren’t done yet as a nation in terms of equality (it seems like we’re always discriminating against SOMEONE)
Interracial marriage: on the one hand I’m glad it’s so low as 17% and on the other i’m disturbed it’s as high as 17%. I guess I have a hard time believing anyone is really against interracial marriage since I’ve just never been around that kind of mentality. It’s just strange to me. although i also think media outlets sensationalize things and always tries to promote the “racial friction!!1” thing which I haven never experienced amongst my own relatives…though maybe it’s the times and people are getting over themselves. I think piggy’s right, the number will go down more and more as time moves on.
That’s the hope…
But you’re right, the media does help to perpetuate things like that. However, just because you’ve never experienced it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
About the minarets in Switzerland- I agree with speller73 in that if symbols of a certain religion are banned, then symbols of other religions should be banned as well. Not that that would be likely to succeed.
lol believe me I know it exists, i am the product of an interracial marriage. I just find it loopy because 1)my relatives don’t give me or my parents crap and 2) I don’t understand people who are like that anyway. urgh…
Interracial marriage- What should I say, I’m austrian! But racism is a big problem here. *sigh* One of the biggest problems is that basically every non-caucasian is an ethnic minority. So we have a bad rep, and the only (okay, most of) such people who come (to live) here usually do because they’re a) diplomats or b) drug dealers. The latter category gives african-austrians a bad name, which in turn means that they go to live somewhere else. *headdesk*
Religion- FS, please stop generalizing when you talk about religions. While various religions include terrorists, sexists and generally xenophobic and unpleasant individuals, they also include people who like to believe in god “for the heck of it”. Because that’s what they want, because it makes them happy to believe that there’s someone out there you cares what they do with their life. If it makes them happy, they should be allowed to believe in whatever religion they choose. For extremists, religion is just an excuse, and there’s nothing about religion as such that encourages people to go out and murder their neighbors because they believe in something else. Obviously, believing everything some religious leader says is cake. But an enlightened view on religion is perfectly fine, and while bad points are constantly stressed in discussions, religion can also be very beneficial. Yes, religion can be an “excuse” for terrorists, but there’s also a difference between plain old religion and sects. You can’t just throw it all out the window because some is bad.
You fail to see my differentiation between individuals who practice the religion, and the collection of dogmas, traditions and ideologies that constitute that specific religion. Individuals have rights. Institutions need to be held accountable for their actions.
Yes, but individuals are also responsible for their actions. You can’t shovel all the blame onto institutions. Besides, most religions depend on the interpretation of various individuals.
Of course. And this particular institution must account for all interpretations- not merely to nonviolent ones.
Now that, if I may say so, is a preposterous statement. Why would I, for instance, be held responsible if another Catholic on the other side of the world decided to kill someone “in the name of God”? What you fail to see, Fridgey, is that institutions are individuals. Groups are made up of people. So if people have rights, institutions have rights, because they are made up of people.
Catholicism is an institution, with its own hierarchical body and its own space in the social structure. And if Catholicism can lead people to murder one another in the name of god then you do have to account for it. At the very least you must justify why you ascribe to an institution that can cause such events to happen.
Anything could lead people to murder “in the name of God”, but more often then not it’s insanity, yes? Not Catholicism. Not Islam. Not religion. People would kill other people whether or not religion existed. If someone kills another person and says religion made them do it, they obviously would’ve killed that person anyway–they’re just using religion as an excuse. Had religion not been there they would’ve had a different excuse.
Fridgey, your problem is not with religion. Your problem is with mankind.
Bull. There is a logical connection between religious texts and beliefs and violence. It is entirely possible and only too common for people to be motivated by religion to commit horrible acts- we have their testimony to prove it. You mentioned insanity- yes, religious belief is the only sociably acceptable form of insanity. Illogical, unprovable, fallacious beliefs in unseen entities. Even neurologists agree, religious belief works the same way as a psychiatric delusion. Except that if many people share the delusion it becomes something that deserves respect.
While it is true that there are many other motivations for violence, it is not true that there would be the exact same level without religion. Furthermore, I never claimed that religion was the cause of all violence. But it does fuzz the line and make it a lot more difficult to condemn violence that happens in a religious context. And it does, as we have seen all to well in the past few decades, cause immense suffering by instilling deluded beliefs of opposing opinion and equal intensity.
*claps for Piggy* Yay! You pointed out a hard to find fallacy! (Falllacy of addition: putting aspects of an individual onto a group.)
I always clap for people who find hard to find fallacies.
I heard about this person in Mississippi or somewhere, who refused to marry an interracial couple. Now, on one hand that’s pretty racist, because he said he believed it “wouldn’t work out.” A lot of same-race marriages also “don’t work out,” correct? On the other hand, should he really have been forced to do something he didn’t believe in ( marry the couple )? That’s how my teacher explained it, anyway.
On the subject of LBGT, I believe openly “practicing” ( for lack of a better word ) homosexuals cannot be accepted into the United States military. HOW RIDICULOUS! For what reason?
…
This comment completely pisses me off?
You probably don’t know me, I’m not on here much, so I’ll introduce myself. Hi. I’m Beavo, I’m a biologically male gender neutral pansexual person. So I kind of might have an extreme point of view. Sorry.
There’s a difference between standing up for your beleifs and actually having beleifs worth standing up for. Opinions are something you create for yourself. Ignorance comes with being wrapped in your own egotistic bubble. This person who didn’t marry the interracial couple was expressing the latter. It’s ignorance to decide an interracial couple “wouldn’t work out”, but above that, whose buisness is it except for theirs? It’s not your place to save them the trouble of getting a divorce, you’re not their counselor. If he believed in purse-snatching because “they would just spend the money on beer” does that mean he doesn’t go to jail? While the current laws have their faults, the theft ones are in place because theft sucks.
And now on to your next comment.
What’s the difference between a “parcticing” homosexual and one that doesn’t? Granted, one might feel more shame and guilt and depression for hiding from enself, but freals. Just because Jen decides to kiss Jackie doesn’t mean she can’t still shoot a gun. “For what reason?” Maybe because even though it’s a country that doesn’t want to let them love they still believe in the amounts of equality we have? It’s my country. If I want to go kill people over it what does it matter what gender I’m attracted to? Is there like some sort of gay-proof bullet vest that protects against gay bullets? Or are the gays going to parade into the military, forcing the poor straights to watch RuPaul’s drag race and wear rainbow. That’s not camoflauge! Kick ’em out!
Don’t Ask Don’t Tell makes me sick. War makes me sick, but Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is like that feeling you get just before vomiting.
I agree on don’t ask don’t tell.. I totally know the vomit feeling.
what pisses me off is how discriminatory don’t ask don’t tell is… if they(the government) said “okay, no romance or PDA of any kind AT ALL” I wouldn’t mind that (it’s stupid, but I wouldn’t mind it.)
The military needs to catch up w/ the times… HIstory lesson YEA!
So from the end of the victorian ages through WWII homosexuality was considered by most as A.) criminal or b.) a mental disease (in case any of you have any doubts, it’s niether)which lead to all sorts of “cures” (read: tortures) for gay people… And of course the military would not allow anyone they considered to be “mentally ill” into the military. So while doing medical screening they asked incoming officers-to-be “do you like girls?” (remember military was all guys then) and if they answered “no” then they were declared unfit for service. Later, homosexuality was feared in a way similar to communism(cold war era), and I suppose the military kept similar, slightly evolved policies since then. People were arrested and mistreated by police, fired from thier jobs, and shunned by thier nieghbors all for being in love… Now that is sickening.
By the way, this history lesson is brought to you by “A History of growing up gay in america” which is an amazing book that I highly recomend.
Oh, and Hi Beavo! I was wondering where you went (I changed my name and stayed off th blog for oh, 3 months, but I’m back)
I can almost see where the government is coming from on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy. Sexual preference, sexual activities, anything remotely sexual really isn’t relevant in the armed forces. By signing on, you’re putting your country/its safety above everything else, which should (I feel) include one’s sexual orientation. Of course, that’s a bit idealist. I think they worry that if openly ‘practicing’ homosexual soldiers are allowed in the armed forces, it would create strange social dynamics that distract soldiers from their primary objective (being a soldier). I would be close to agreeing with that, if it weren’t for the fact that heterosexual activities are already a source of trouble and distraction in the US Army. I cited this a few threads ago, and can provide the link if necessary, but: â€According to several studies of the US military funded by the Department of Veteran Affairs, 30% of military women are raped while serving, 71% are sexually assaulted, and 90% are sexually harassed.†So, basically, the government has nothing to stand on, as allowing these ‘practising’ homosexuals to serve their country seems like it’s the least of the problems the US Armed Forces has right now. As long as homosexuals are physically, mentally and emotionally fit for the armed forces, I don’t have a problem with them serving.
Loving v Virgina
he broke the law
he is a racist
end of story
I’m not sure if you’re saying you agree or disagree with DADT. I have some horrible stories to share with you if you agree with it. not sure what you mean about practicing. if you mean dudes/ladies who are having sex, I’m pretty sure soldiers of all sexualities have been doing a lot of that for basically forever :/
So Obama sent 30K troops to Aghanistan. Yay. -.-”
I’d like to know why, though. What was the motivation???
I have no idea why. *coughVietnamcough*
Entirely different situation. Vietnam was a war, Iraq has become an occupation.
True, but both are dragging on longer than the people who decided to go in had thought, and both are increasing dislike among the American people.
Not to mention dislike “of” the American people.
Motivation: trying to not lose. Whether it’ll be anything close to successful or not I can’t say. Why do you not support the additional troops?
It’s not a war anymore, it’s an occupation. There’s nothing left to “win”.
I agree, and you can’t “win” an occupation. He better get the hell out of there as soon as he can.
Although there is an argument to be made for remaining there in an effort to construct a peace after the horrendous war that Bush started.
“Playing hero” is what got them into trouble in the first place, and it’s a little late to try and make amends.
I disagree. I think the US has to make amends for the mess we started, both to help the Iraqi people, and to restore our image to the rest of the world. However, I don’t know if 30k more troops is the right way to go about doing that.
People don’t accept amends from soldiers with guns. The longer you occupy a place, the more the locals hate you, and it’s always easy to shovel blame onto the troops. Give’em some sort of armed government, put your thumbs in your ears and run like hell. Do it better next time. Iran is the place with nuclear weaponry, and if you spend all the troops in a hopeless situation then it won’t look good. Before you start making amends, you have to get out of their faces. Just don’t mess up the next time.
Wait, wait. It’s no longer just the US in there. And with the administration change, it’s safe to say that the people in charge of US troops have done a complete 180°. It’s a UN zone now. Civil war has erupted, and international troops, from both Europe and America, are stationed there to keep the peace. Of course, the Bush administration started the whole mess, and should be set on trial for war crimes and condemned to life in jail for crimes against humanity, BUT- there still is work to be done. It’s just not America’s war anymore, now it’s a global humanitarian issue.
It’s never been “just the US in there”. For most of the war thus far, if my (admittedly irresponsible) memory serves me right, NATO troops have outnumbered US troops. Civil war has always been present, in my view of it, though it occasionally lays dormant.
I didn’t mean that only US troops were present, but in its first stages it was “America’s war”. Now it isn’t.
Whoah. Facts.
Obama announced that he’s sending 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, not Iraq. The two countries are very different. Therefore, they need different goals. Obama’s plan is to surge troops in Afghanistan, regain control of the country, train Afghani troops, severely weaken the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, and then begin a troop decrease in 18 months.
In Iraq, I do believe that only the United States has troops in any really significant number. The plan in Iraq is to continue withdrawing troops while keeping the country stable.
Ah, that makes much more sense. Thanks.
Depressing statistic i came across a while ago:
For the amount of money it takes to send a soldier to Afghanistan for a year, about 20 schools could be built. Of course, just building a school won’t do any good, but it’s a start. Educating people works.