Westboro Baptist Church

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

KyuuAL said:
Sensationalism. You blame "corporate media" for that. On that note, my primary source for American news happen to be British (Reuters and BBC). They're less prone to American partisanship, even if they're still affected.

Defiance said:
The dogmatic nature of modern American politics is getting worse and worse with little chance of getting better, which is a sad thought.

If national partisanship can be destroyed, it'll be a good step forward. But it looks like: this dual-party system that we're dealing with has to ridiculously run its course.

Defiance said:
eople no longer care about voting for a politician that will fight for what is fair, they want to vote for people who will inflict their like-minded morals on everyone else.

It's been quite easy to "pick sides" and go along with it. However, for the long term, that's not feasible. The current state of politics clearly demonstrate that.

Public opinion polls have shown that the public generally agree despite party affiliation with many questions regarding Congressional performance (80%+ disapproval) and various economic ideas. It is the power here that will ultimately change America's direction. Today's politicians are no longer adequate for that.

Unfortunately, we're forced to choose among the dunderheads currently active.

The problem is simple and clear. Do you care more about our politicians concentrating properly managing monetary policies, fighting only in just wars and abiding the constitution or more about their position on abortion? More and more people seem to care only for the latter and it's disgusting that people are that stupid.

Sep 9, 2011 12:39 AM

#103

Offline

Aug 2008

16084

I hope to have made that clear. Government is all about monetary policy.

Unfortunately, Roe vs Wade gave the social elite the opportunity to split the middle class amongst themselves to favor their wealthy interests. The timing of the wealth disparity divergence since the 1980s is no coincidence. Average wage vs CEO earnings had a ratio of 1:40. Now, it's well over 1:300. This is why I kept arguing in favor of increased taxation on incomes about some arbitrary 6-figure number.

In addition, wipe out the current tax code and start new. It's interesting that the Republican candidate Cain was saying that. America's tax code used to be simple. China's tax code is currently simple.

What should government do with increased revenue? Simple. Spend it on the country for infrastructure projects.
* High speed rail
* Road maintenance
* The Internet
And more, to create environments for business to thrive.

As for social policies like abortion, gay marriage, and so on -- if people really do not like these policies, join a church. Even if the federal government adopts these policies nationally, churches do not have to modify their own policies to fall in line, all thanks to Freedom of Religion.

Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List

RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it.

Sep 9, 2011 1:08 AM

#104

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

We are venturing waaaaaaay off topic now lol, but you talk about the "elite" in society far too much. I believe much of the blame is to be put on the passively stupid masses for refusing to be more educated on political matters before voting. You can tell me that the "social elite" are controlling the media and such, but at the end of the day, the internet is a tool with which anyone can become relatively educated on all doctrines of thought. I do not believe in such thing as unbiased media, but being well versed in the different forms helps cut the nonsense. Hell, a history book will tell you more about politics than any news outlet today lol.

Long story short, stupid people no longer have an excuse to be stupid with the various forms of information out there. Learn to vote using knowledge and intelligence, not random fits of emotion.

DefianceSep 9, 2011 1:12 AM

Sep 9, 2011 1:49 AM

#105

Offline

Aug 2008

16084

I'll say this. I'd be happier being an idiot enjoying anime and all this other stuff. But unfortunately, these economic conditions does put me towards some worry.

Defiance said:
I believe much of the blame is to be put on the passively stupid masses for refusing to be more educated on political matters before voting.

...

Long story short, stupid people no longer have an excuse to be stupid with the various forms of information out there. Learn to vote using knowledge and intelligence, not random fits of emotion.

It's up to the smart ones to wake up the idiots. Often, brains can be so locked to a message, they're stuck; stuck to one viewpoint. On top of that, the average person is vain. Even if they're not stuck to a particular viewpoint, they're not even paying attention. Other things are of higher importance, like entertainment.

Yet, deep down. I know a lot of people out there still have a clue as to what's going on; and they don't like it.

Defiance said:
You can tell me that the "social elite" are controlling the media and such, but at the end of the day, the internet is tool with which anyone can become relatively educated on all doctrines of thought.

For you see, I blame the social elite for throwing out messages that entices these idiots and use their voting power into their favor. To think, if I were wealthy, I would have done the same thing.

Defiance said:
I do not believe in such thing as unbiased media, but being well versed in the different forms helps cut the nonsense. Hell, a history book will tell you more about politics than any news outlet today lol.

Well, yes. With regards to media, it's all a matter of degree of bias anyways. Nevertheless, foreign news sources have one advantage over American news sources: they're "outside looking in".

Ever compared your ability to edit your own papers vs letting someone else proofread? I'm willing to bet - the other person has an easier time spotting your own errors.

===

Finally, yea. It's a very good idea to have a good base on history to compare today's news. The arguments I've written in the past have been based on the question: "How did America pull out of the Great Depression?"

If America wants solutions, this is where we have to turn to. If ideas then worked, at least some of it can work now. The comparisons are there.

Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List

RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it.

Sep 9, 2011 1:54 AM

#106

Drunk_Samurai

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Defiance said:

KyuuAL said:

Defiance said:
Despite his personal beliefs on abortion, he has said he wants abortion legislation to be held at the state level instead of having it thrust upon us on a national level. Abortion is one of those things that I'm not quite so concrete on though, I take more of a Hitchen's approach to it.

One thing about Roe vs Wade... it's a Supreme Court decision, rather than a Constitutional Amendment. So, there's nothing wrong about states handling the abortion issue on their own.

The problem is that both sides of the isle want to nationalize their views. They wish to inflict their moral views on as many people as possible. It's that kind of sensationalism that has killed constitutionalism and states rights in America. People no longer care about voting for a politician that will fight for what is fair, they want to vote for people who will inflict their like-minded morals on everyone else. This applies to both dominating ideologies in America(liberal and neo-conservative). The dogmatic nature of modern American politics is getting worse and worse with little chance of getting better, which is a sad thought.

A perfect example would be the drug war. States politicians should be absolutely enraged over this issue, a state can't even legalize pot if it wants to because the federal government is trampling their rights.

It works both ways. If you allow full state rights then you get shit like this. http://uselectionnews.org/mississippi-initiative-to-outsmart-roe-v-wade-prohibit-abortion/854746/

Sep 9, 2011 7:57 AM

#107

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Drunk_Samurai said:

Defiance said:

KyuuAL said:

Defiance said:
Despite his personal beliefs on abortion, he has said he wants abortion legislation to be held at the state level instead of having it thrust upon us on a national level. Abortion is one of those things that I'm not quite so concrete on though, I take more of a Hitchen's approach to it.

One thing about Roe vs Wade... it's a Supreme Court decision, rather than a Constitutional Amendment. So, there's nothing wrong about states handling the abortion issue on their own.

The problem is that both sides of the isle want to nationalize their views. They wish to inflict their moral views on as many people as possible. It's that kind of sensationalism that has killed constitutionalism and states rights in America. People no longer care about voting for a politician that will fight for what is fair, they want to vote for people who will inflict their like-minded morals on everyone else. This applies to both dominating ideologies in America(liberal and neo-conservative). The dogmatic nature of modern American politics is getting worse and worse with little chance of getting better, which is a sad thought.

A perfect example would be the drug war. States politicians should be absolutely enraged over this issue, a state can't even legalize pot if it wants to because the federal government is trampling their rights.

It works both ways. If you allow full state rights then you get shit like this. http://uselectionnews.org/mississippi-initiative-to-outsmart-roe-v-wade-prohibit-abortion/854746/

What gives you the right to decide the moral choices of Mississippi? Abortion is clearly a social and moral question that societies need to answer themselves.

It is not something as cut and dry as rape or murder. Even I, a hardened atheist like Christopher Hitchens, believe that the concept of an unborn child is real. To what extent a fetus becomes an unborn child, I can't quite answer that. That is exactly why it is a question that society must answer.

Sep 9, 2011 8:27 AM

#108

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:
it is a question that society must answer.

I just wonder if we were talking about the merits of murder which society has deemed wrong per decision and we were asking the murderers as well would we have as a society have come to the conclusion that murder is basically ok?

It is far more complex as you as, but I'm just skeptical about a society that will basically allow even the people who are coming the 'crime' to determine whether it is right or not.

The main problem is that as a true objective society technically everything, from murder to rape and pedophilia should be ok to commit as basically they are 'fundamental' human instincts. Ask a rapist if it's ok to rape of course he wil say yes. Same as murderers and pedophiles alike, they don't see the acts they commit as being wrong or criminal in anyway and have compelling arguments as to why what they do is ok.

If we then give those same people the ability to actually affect the outcome of a society by asking them how they think society should be run then you are basically letting the inmates run the asylum.

At what point do you draw a line and say that the protagonist of such action are not allowed to comment on how society should be formed, and at what point is that ok to basically take away people's right to rule their own life. The main reason anti abortion groups are stupid is that they don't seem to realize it wont ever stop women from getting abortion it will just increase the risk of death and disease when they do.

Sep 9, 2011 8:55 AM

#109

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
it is a question that society must answer.

I just wonder if we were talking about the merits of murder which society has deemed wrong per decision and we were asking the murderers as well would we have as a society have come to the conclusion that murder is basically ok?

It is far more complex as you as, but I'm just skeptical about a society that will basically allow even the people who are coming the 'crime' to determine whether it is right or not.

The main problem is that as a true objective society technically everything, from murder to rape and pedophilia should be ok to commit as basically they are 'fundamental' human instincts. Ask a rapist if it's ok to rape of course he wil say yes. Same as murderers and pedophiles alike, they don't see the acts they commit as being wrong or criminal in anyway and have compelling arguments as to why what they do is ok.

If we then give those same people the ability to actually affect the outcome of a society by asking them how they think society should be run then you are basically letting the inmates run the asylum.

At what point do you draw a line and say that the protagonist of such action are not allowed to comment on how society should be formed, and at what point is that ok to basically take away people's right to rule their own life. The main reason anti abortion groups are stupid is that they don't seem to realize it wont ever stop women from getting abortion it will just increase the risk of death and disease when they do.

Seeing as this is America, I believe anyone is allowed to make a comment, but those who say such ridiculous things should realize they are open to being criticized by their peers. It will be through that critique and rational debate that society will advance.

Sep 9, 2011 10:00 AM

#110

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
it is a question that society must answer.

I just wonder if we were talking about the merits of murder which society has deemed wrong per decision and we were asking the murderers as well would we have as a society have come to the conclusion that murder is basically ok?

It is far more complex as you as, but I'm just skeptical about a society that will basically allow even the people who are coming the 'crime' to determine whether it is right or not.

The main problem is that as a true objective society technically everything, from murder to rape and pedophilia should be ok to commit as basically they are 'fundamental' human instincts. Ask a rapist if it's ok to rape of course he wil say yes. Same as murderers and pedophiles alike, they don't see the acts they commit as being wrong or criminal in anyway and have compelling arguments as to why what they do is ok.

If we then give those same people the ability to actually affect the outcome of a society by asking them how they think society should be run then you are basically letting the inmates run the asylum.

At what point do you draw a line and say that the protagonist of such action are not allowed to comment on how society should be formed, and at what point is that ok to basically take away people's right to rule their own life. The main reason anti abortion groups are stupid is that they don't seem to realize it wont ever stop women from getting abortion it will just increase the risk of death and disease when they do.

Seeing as this is America, I believe anyone is allowed to make a comment, but those who say such ridiculous things should realize they are open to being criticized by their peers. It will be through that critique and rational debate that society will advance.

You over estimate society, since when has society ever enter into rational debate about anything.

Oh yeah they might put on a show of being 'rational' and subjectively critical about a situation, so then why is it in america they praise a man for killing over 256 people and justify that, or that GOD is angry which is why there is debt, or in the UK stealing tax payer money to clean your moat and lets not forget the whole current war situation over oil.

No i'm sorry society if anything has proven it's irrationality about almost anything and it's inability to be able to make sound decisions about almost everything.

You might call people foolish for having 'faith' in God, but I call people foolish for having 'faith' in a society which subjugates nearly 2/3 of the worlds population.

Sep 9, 2011 10:20 AM

#111

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
it is a question that society must answer.

I just wonder if we were talking about the merits of murder which society has deemed wrong per decision and we were asking the murderers as well would we have as a society have come to the conclusion that murder is basically ok?

It is far more complex as you as, but I'm just skeptical about a society that will basically allow even the people who are coming the 'crime' to determine whether it is right or not.

The main problem is that as a true objective society technically everything, from murder to rape and pedophilia should be ok to commit as basically they are 'fundamental' human instincts. Ask a rapist if it's ok to rape of course he wil say yes. Same as murderers and pedophiles alike, they don't see the acts they commit as being wrong or criminal in anyway and have compelling arguments as to why what they do is ok.

If we then give those same people the ability to actually affect the outcome of a society by asking them how they think society should be run then you are basically letting the inmates run the asylum.

At what point do you draw a line and say that the protagonist of such action are not allowed to comment on how society should be formed, and at what point is that ok to basically take away people's right to rule their own life. The main reason anti abortion groups are stupid is that they don't seem to realize it wont ever stop women from getting abortion it will just increase the risk of death and disease when they do.

Seeing as this is America, I believe anyone is allowed to make a comment, but those who say such ridiculous things should realize they are open to being criticized by their peers. It will be through that critique and rational debate that society will advance.

You over estimate society, since when has society ever enter into rational debate about anything.

Oh yeah they might put on a show of being 'rational' and subjectively critical about a situation, so then why is it in america they praise a man for killing over 256 people and justify that, or that GOD is angry which is why there is debt, or in the UK stealing tax payer money to clean your moat and lets not forget the whole current war situation over oil.

No i'm sorry society if anything has proven it's irrationality about almost anything and it's inability to be able to make sound decisions about almost everything.

You might call people foolish for having 'faith' in God, but I call people foolish for having 'faith' in a society which subjugates nearly 2/3 of the worlds population.

Well what do you suppose we should do? Should we just lock up all the loonies like the WBC goers in a shed until your definition of rational people find out how to convince them otherwise? You are pointing out problems but providing no solutions.

I propose rational debate because it is a step forward for the human condition. To confront and educate these people on the wonders of science and the cosmos without the dogmatic approach that religion has inflicted upon society for millennia.

Sep 9, 2011 11:00 AM

#112

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:
Should we just lock up all the loonies like the WBC goers in a shed until your definition of rational people find out how to convince them otherwise? You are pointing out problems but providing no solutions.

.

That's a pretty good solution, also forced sterilization of said people. your way is good too, lets just talk, because that seems to be working....no wait.

Sep 9, 2011 11:16 AM

#113

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
Should we just lock up all the loonies like the WBC goers in a shed until your definition of rational people find out how to convince them otherwise? You are pointing out problems but providing no solutions.

That's a pretty good solution, also forced sterilization of said people. your way is good too, lets just talk, because that seems to be working....no wait.

It is this exact kind of vitriolic emotional response to the WBC that has ceded their victory. You have let them successfully bait you into an irrational Orwellian attitude to get what you want.

Sep 9, 2011 11:19 AM

#114

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
Should we just lock up all the loonies like the WBC goers in a shed until your definition of rational people find out how to convince them otherwise? You are pointing out problems but providing no solutions.

That's a pretty good solution, also forced sterilization of said people. your way is good too, lets just talk, because that seems to be working....no wait.

It is this exact kind of vitriolic emotional response to the WBC that has ceded their victory. You have let them successfully bait you into an irrational Orwellian attitude to get what you want.

It's a two way street, I however am open to the possibility of rational debate, are they?

Sep 9, 2011 11:27 AM

#115

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
Should we just lock up all the loonies like the WBC goers in a shed until your definition of rational people find out how to convince them otherwise? You are pointing out problems but providing no solutions.

That's a pretty good solution, also forced sterilization of said people. your way is good too, lets just talk, because that seems to be working....no wait.

It is this exact kind of vitriolic emotional response to the WBC that has ceded their victory. You have let them successfully bait you into an irrational Orwellian attitude to get what you want.

It's a two way street, I however am open to the possibility of rational debate, are they?

You are open to rational debate? That wasn't my impression with your last post stating you wanted to commit violence against them to silence them. What about the WBC makes you want to commit the very violence they are chanting for? You seem to support free speech up until the point it offends you.

Sep 9, 2011 1:33 PM

#116

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
Should we just lock up all the loonies like the WBC goers in a shed until your definition of rational people find out how to convince them otherwise? You are pointing out problems but providing no solutions.

That's a pretty good solution, also forced sterilization of said people. your way is good too, lets just talk, because that seems to be working....no wait.

It is this exact kind of vitriolic emotional response to the WBC that has ceded their victory. You have let them successfully bait you into an irrational Orwellian attitude to get what you want.

It's a two way street, I however am open to the possibility of rational debate, are they?

You are open to rational debate? That wasn't my impression with your last post stating you wanted to commit violence against them to silence them. What about the WBC makes you want to commit the very violence they are chanting for? You seem to support free speech up until the point it offends you.

It was a sarcastic statement meant to highlight how obtuse people CAN be, and this communication only further illustrates that no matter how 'rational' one person THINKS they are being there will always be someone to openly dispute that and cause further divided leading to even more irrational debate and conjecture.

You were talking about how I had been baited into believing (X) when in actual fact it was I who was baiting you into your next post. Which worked. Now you in your 'super rational state' were mislead by what I was saying just so I could further illustrate a point I wanted to make.

This was harmless in itself, I'm sure you were not hurt by my misleading comment especially after I have just now clarified it, but essentially I maneuvered you into an opinion position I wanted you to be in so I could take a Juxtapose view to counter your 'rational' idea.

While you were so busy being 'rational' I was simply laughing at you walking into a verbal trap. That was there to simple illustrate that no matter how much you WANT other people to think like you and be rational like you, that is in fact not the case at all.

If it was then there would be no wars, or conflicts or hate. But there is, and that's because people by their very nature especially the far right are irrational being.

Especially women.

Sep 9, 2011 1:57 PM

#117

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
Should we just lock up all the loonies like the WBC goers in a shed until your definition of rational people find out how to convince them otherwise? You are pointing out problems but providing no solutions.

That's a pretty good solution, also forced sterilization of said people. your way is good too, lets just talk, because that seems to be working....no wait.

It is this exact kind of vitriolic emotional response to the WBC that has ceded their victory. You have let them successfully bait you into an irrational Orwellian attitude to get what you want.

It's a two way street, I however am open to the possibility of rational debate, are they?

You are open to rational debate? That wasn't my impression with your last post stating you wanted to commit violence against them to silence them. What about the WBC makes you want to commit the very violence they are chanting for? You seem to support free speech up until the point it offends you.

It was a sarcastic statement meant to highlight how obtuse people CAN be, and this communication only further illustrates that no matter how 'rational' one person THINKS they are being there will always be someone to openly dispute that and cause further divided leading to even more irrational debate and conjecture.

You were talking about how I had been baited into believing (X) when in actual fact it was I who was baiting you into your next post. Which worked. Now you in your 'super rational state' were mislead by what I was saying just so I could further illustrate a point I wanted to make.

This was harmless in itself, I'm sure you were not hurt by my misleading comment especially after I have just now clarified it, but essentially I maneuvered you into an opinion position I wanted you to be in so I could take a Juxtapose view to counter your 'rational' idea.

While you were so busy being 'rational' I was simply laughing at you walking into a verbal trap. That was there to simple illustrate that no matter how much you WANT other people to think like you and be rational like you, that is in fact not the case at all.

If it was then there would be no wars, or conflicts or hate. But there is, and that's because people by their very nature especially the far right are irrational being.

Especially women.

I still do not get the point you are trying to get at. The only thing you managed to "bait" me into is confusion. You are constantly providing dissent that society cannot make decisions for itself and have said that in both your intentionally "misleading" and just now proposed argument lol. This "manuever" and "bait" language you are using is irrelevant and sounds as if you are trying to sound smart. I really don't care for how eloquent or intelligent you think you are.

Have you not said the entire time, including in this post I'm quoting, that you believe society is not capable of thinking for itself? You are seriously wandering from this question, particularly with this last post. All you are trying to suggest is that because two people have different outlook on what is rational, they are incapable of cohesion and understanding. What is the point of debate in your world then if this is the case?

Long story short, I don't see what you are even getting at but apparently you believe that humans are incapable of exercising rationality between one another because they somehow become.... more irrational? Perhaps we should just start over, what is your position on the WBC?

EDIT: I support free speech as if talking of my own opinion. To quote Christopher Hitchens again, "I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place and at any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number... get in line ... and kiss my ass."

DefianceSep 9, 2011 2:08 PM

Sep 9, 2011 2:00 PM

#118

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:
you believe that humans are incapable of exercising rationality between one another because they somehow become.... more irrational?

Not all humans, just some, and enough to make life difficult for others that no amount of rationality would make any difference.

Sep 9, 2011 2:15 PM

#119

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
you believe that humans are incapable of exercising rationality between one another because they somehow become.... more irrational?

Not all humans, just some, and enough to make life difficult for others that no amount of rationality would make any difference.

This sounds awfully totalitarian. Without your "baiting" techniques, I would honestly like to hear what your solution to this is then. What should we do to exercise ourselves of these people? If not through free speech and reason, how?

Sep 9, 2011 2:38 PM

#120

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:

Defiance said:
you believe that humans are incapable of exercising rationality between one another because they somehow become.... more irrational?

Not all humans, just some, and enough to make life difficult for others that no amount of rationality would make any difference.

This sounds awfully totalitarian. Without your "baiting" techniques, I would honestly like to hear what your solution to this is then. What should we do to exercise ourselves of these people? If not through free speech and reason, how?

You assume we can?

You can't always reach a level or rational understanding with people, it's just the default fortune of being human i'm afraid.

WBC was never a problem free speech wise until they started affecting people lives directly by involving themselves in legal battles against people and places. If all they are doing is exercising their ability to free speech then there's no harm, even if what they say is offensive.

people lose their ability to rationalize, that's why people kill their spouses, children, or just go postal. It happens, if they were rational about it they would stop and say 'oh wait this might be the wrong course of action to take for a lot of people might be hurt'' But they don't, and if you try to stop them things go badly, thats why we have a police force, to intervene when rationality fails.

Thats the 'solution' people came up with, a body of law enforcement that intervene when people lose their ability to function rationally.

I know what you are striving for, some universal argument or rationale that might end conflict between people, but this is far off from happening if ever.

The problem is that it's easy to generalize with a group like WBC or NAZI because they identify with a group, so the idea that you might reach them intellectually seems tantalizing, but you forget that they are still individuals and even though they might unite over a general banner for these things they are still segregated by the things people are in daily life.

It's commendable that you believe that rational conversation can lead to understanding between both parties, but it's just not true. The ONLY thing stopping our nations from a full and total all out war is the Nuclear deterrent the Major powers have. Even each nation is subdivided into at least two parties if not more.

Yes the Republicans and democrats and the 'rational parties, but give then chance to run the WBC would just be there, like a mental stain stating all the racial and bigoted hated they can think of just like the BNP in the UK which ACTUALLY holds seats in parliament.

Government works like this, its the only solution we have and it works for the most part to stop all out war.

But as idealistic as your dream might be, and I encourage you to never give that up, don't be so naive about the nature of humanity.

Sep 9, 2011 3:10 PM

#121

Offline

Aug 2008

16084

Alpha-kudasu said:
You can't always reach a level or rational understanding with people, it's just the default fortune of being human i'm afraid.

One example of an irrational human:

Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List

RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it.

Sep 9, 2011 3:22 PM

#122

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:
You assume we can?

You can't always reach a level or rational understanding with people, it's just the default fortune of being human i'm afraid.

I believe we can, to an extent anyway. Humans obviously are not able to rationalize things perfectly. Our frontal lobes are too small and our adrenal glands are too large for that, but we are capable of improving on the current state of the human condition. In my opinion, the naive belief is that we are incapable of bettering society through rational thought.

It's commendable that you believe that rational conversation can lead to understanding between both parties, but it's just not true.

It's not just a search of understand, its a search for freedom and truth. To quote Rosa Luxemburg, "the freedom of speech is meaningless unless it means the freedom of the person who thinks differently."

The moment you want to shield the public from someone's speech, you have slowed down the progress of humanity. The most obvious example I can show you is the fall of religious fundamentalism in the western world. Through rational debate and free speech, the western world has slowly moved away from it's dependance on the Abrahamic religions, that fact is undeniable. Rational debate will improve the condition of humans through the constant barrage of questions and difference of opinions to your own, not destabilize it as you suggest.

Perhaps the results are just not as fast as you'd want them to be, but through evidence and rational thought/debate society will greatly improve. 500 years ago, people still thought the world was flat, but through evidence and debate the once widely held belief that the world was flat was extinguished.

EDIT:To sum up what I'm saying, dogmatism is the real enemy of humanity and that is something we can fight back against.

DefianceSep 9, 2011 3:53 PM

Sep 9, 2011 4:21 PM

#123

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:

EDIT:To sum up what I'm saying, dogmatism is the real enemy of humanity and that is something we can fight back against.

I like to think positive too, in fact Uk has just revoked the law saying gay men can't give blood, which is a huge step forward.

But lets not forget as government pushes forward you will always have people who won't like or follow progressive thinking. It was because of these people that it was made illegal in the first place, lets not forget that.

Sep 9, 2011 4:32 PM

#124

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

Alpha-kudasu said:
you will always have people who won't like or follow progressive thinking.

That is exactly why it is the responsibility of society to present evidence and use rational debate to guide those who are unwilling. It might take a day, it might day a decade. Hell, it might take several thousand years(e.g. religion), but it can be done.

Sep 9, 2011 4:35 PM

#125

Offline

Jan 2008

4217

Defiance said:

Alpha-kudasu said:
you will always have people who won't like or follow progressive thinking.

That is exactly why it is the responsibility of society to present evidence and use rational debate to guide those who are unwilling. It might take a day, it might day a decade. Hell, it might take several thousand years(e.g. religion), but it can be done.

You need to play this when you're saying all of that

Sep 9, 2011 8:16 PM

#126

Offline

Aug 2008

16084

Progressive thinking, you say? Well, then, be sure to tune into this man's show during the weekdays. Otherwise, there's podcasting.

http://normangoldman.com/

Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List

RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it.

Sep 9, 2011 8:34 PM

#127

Offline

Jul 2008

3408

KyuuAL said:
Progressive thinking, you say? Well, then, be sure to tune into this man's show during the weekdays. Otherwise, there's podcasting.

http://normangoldman.com/

I don't think he was referring to progressivism in the leftist sense. I don't like being lumped in with a guy that supports FDR and Keynesian economics.

Sep 9, 2011 8:45 PM

#128

Offline

Aug 2008

16084

Defiance said:

KyuuAL said:
Progressive thinking, you say? Well, then, be sure to tune into this man's show during the weekdays. Otherwise, there's podcasting.

http://normangoldman.com/

I don't think he was referring to progressivism in the leftist sense. I don't like being lumped in with a guy that supports FDR and Keynesian economics.

The more I learn about FDR's policies pulling us out of the Great Depression - the more of I fan I become of him. Of all places, I managed to learn a bit more via the Military Channel (which was free over Labor Day).

Oh, just look at that GDP chart:
http://unreasonable.org/node/2242

Just in one term, FDR already brought the country up to par (1929). And I know; it's shallow to make justifications with just one graph. :p

Click on this. I dare you. | MAL Fantasy Football League | Currently Watching List

RWBY Club. RWBY is anime. Deal with it.

Sep 10, 2011 10:00 AM

#129

Drunk_Samurai

Offline

Aug 2007

7550

Defiance said:

Drunk_Samurai said:

Defiance said:

KyuuAL said:

Defiance said:
Despite his personal beliefs on abortion, he has said he wants abortion legislation to be held at the state level instead of having it thrust upon us on a national level. Abortion is one of those things that I'm not quite so concrete on though, I take more of a Hitchen's approach to it.

One thing about Roe vs Wade... it's a Supreme Court decision, rather than a Constitutional Amendment. So, there's nothing wrong about states handling the abortion issue on their own.

The problem is that both sides of the isle want to nationalize their views. They wish to inflict their moral views on as many people as possible. It's that kind of sensationalism that has killed constitutionalism and states rights in America. People no longer care about voting for a politician that will fight for what is fair, they want to vote for people who will inflict their like-minded morals on everyone else. This applies to both dominating ideologies in America(liberal and neo-conservative). The dogmatic nature of modern American politics is getting worse and worse with little chance of getting better, which is a sad thought.

A perfect example would be the drug war. States politicians should be absolutely enraged over this issue, a state can't even legalize pot if it wants to because the federal government is trampling their rights.

It works both ways. If you allow full state rights then you get shit like this. http://uselectionnews.org/mississippi-initiative-to-outsmart-roe-v-wade-prohibit-abortion/854746/

What gives you the right to decide the moral choices of Mississippi? Abortion is clearly a social and moral question that societies need to answer themselves.

It is not something as cut and dry as rape or murder. Even I, a hardened atheist like Christopher Hitchens, believe that the concept of an unborn child is real. To what extent a fetus becomes an unborn child, I can't quite answer that. That is exactly why it is a question that society must answer.

Most people are against abortion because of religion. It is far more an religious issue. I was showing you how libertarianism will not always work.

Sep 10, 2011 10:39 AM

#130