Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Open letter to conservatives
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 122 (566177)
06-23-2010 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Dr Adequate
06-23-2010 12:15 PM


Re: affecting me
Nuh-uh. I'm right and you're wrong. You should read better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2010 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 62 of 122 (566183)
06-23-2010 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 10:43 AM


Re: affecting me
I think by the nature of being conservative, we assume that everything is going to have some effect so we're weary of any change in the first place. Probably even more weary of things we just plain don't like.
It must suck to be conservative.
Either way, according to AE he doesn't care. Apparently he's pro-choice (even though he used the phrase "murdering a fetus," and threw in atheist and muslims when saying he didn't care about gays getting married -- but only in California because it doesn't affect him.
My question was, how could it affect him if the same things happened in Virginia? The same arguments he would raise as to why it doesn't affect him if they're in Cali would be the same argument for why it wouldn't affect him in Virginia. The only difference is distance. Gays are still together, a paper making it legal in Cali or in Virgina affects no one at all. Same with abortions.
I was just asking for clarity.
Although, that might work on a drunk chick after a show
...and it does.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 10:43 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 12:57 PM onifre has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 63 of 122 (566184)
06-23-2010 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Hyroglyphx
06-23-2010 12:16 PM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
If you get to Boston, I'll take a 45 minute trip down there to watch you perform. Then we can get trashed and hit on a bunch of drunk bitches.
Word! It'll be in November - I'll send you a message when/if I get selected.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-23-2010 12:16 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 122 (566186)
06-23-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by onifre
06-23-2010 12:39 PM


Re: affecting me
It must suck to be conservative.
Its not so bad... I'm not broke and uneducated, that's pretty sweet.
Apparently he's pro-choice (even though he used the phrase "murdering a fetus,"
I think abortion is morally wrong and is "murdering a fetus" but I'm pro-choice.
My question was, how could it affect him if the same things happened in Virginia?
Everything that happens in your state has some effect on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by onifre, posted 06-23-2010 12:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 06-23-2010 1:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 72 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-23-2010 11:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 65 of 122 (566191)
06-23-2010 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 12:57 PM


Re: affecting me
Its not so bad... I'm not broke and uneducated, that's pretty sweet.
What does that have to do with being conservative? or what does that have to do with being able to adjust to change?
I think abortion is morally wrong and is "murdering a fetus" but I'm pro-choice.
What about spontaneous abortions or aborting an embryo, before it's even a fetus... how can these be considered murder of a fetus?
Weird though, at least to me, that you would be pro the choice to comit murder.
Everything that happens in your state has some effect on you.
Give me an example of how 2 gay people signing a piece of paper in your state effects you.
Likewise give me an example of how someone having an abortion in your state effects you.
I here you saying it but I just don't see how it can. Abortions take place every day, ALL of them without my knowledge. How on earth am I effected by it?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 12:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 2:21 PM onifre has replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2688 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 66 of 122 (566192)
06-23-2010 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Modulous
06-23-2010 7:20 AM


Re: Generalised Libel?
Hi, Modulous.
Modulous writes:
Bluejay writes:
This is a strong, direct insinuation that either (1) you, the intended audience, are doing X, and shouldn’t be;
Doesn't seem that way to me at all.
It does to me.
How do you feel about the other half of my sentence:
Bluejay writes:
...or (2) that you, the intended audience, are liable to go and do X, unless you are warned not to.
...?
-----
Modulous writes:
Unless you think King is really trying say that all Conservatives use teleprompters and have gay sex?
I don’t think he’s actually trying to make this argument: I think he’s using a rhetorical device that makes it sound like all conservatives use teleprompters and have gay sex.
This is dishonest, and, therefore, libelous.
Perhaps I've made the mistake of assuming that the device was intentional, when it could very well be accidental. This is another point that I'll glad concede.
-----
Modulous writes:
Is it your opinion that they CAN do the things he listed, that some Conservatives (he claims) have done, and still:
quote:
regain your stature as a party of rational, responsible people,
which is the beginning conditional clause (If you want to...then you can't...)?
Personally, yes, it is my opinion that people can redeem themselves after making bad mistakes.
But, were you actually asking for my personal opinion? Or were you asking for my analysis of Russell King’s position?
King’s position seems to also be that redemption is possible.
-----
Modulous writes:
Bluejay writes:
I don’t see much in the article cited that is not comparable to this statement.
quote:
You really need to disassociate with those among you who:
assert that people making a quarter-million dollars a year can barely make ends meet or that $1 million "isn't a lot of money"
Now find one that is.
First of all, I did say much," and I did so intentionally.
Second of all, here is an example that is parallel in form to most of the comments in Russell King’s letter:
quote:
You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president endorses your proposal.
My statement for comparison:
quote:
You can’t have extramarital affairs, especially in the White House.
(I’ve taken the liberty of making the edits I pointed out in my last post.)
The formula is You can’t do X, with a link to a reference about somebody doing X (which I didn’t provide in my parody: but I figured everybody knew what I was talking about).
In King’s case, X is hypocrisy. In my case, X is infidelity.
The reference is an evidence of guilt. Addressing his comments to you, the intended audience, is a grammatical and rhetorical device that associates this guilt with you, the intended audience.
Again, whether or not he intended it thus, he had to have known that this is how the intended audience was going to read it. If his motives were sincere, then he failed in his responsibility to communicate his sincerity, and instead communicated an accusation.
-----
Modulous writes:
He was pointing out that many influential characters and elected representatives were doing those...
...and was using second person while pointing them out, thereby grammatically associating the listed actions with you, the intended audience.
Unless he feels that you, the intended audience, are guilty of doing the listed actions or are liable to do the listed actions, or wants you, the intended audience, to think they share in the guilt; using this device is highly inappropriate.
So, perhaps I should amend my position to say that, either King is being disingenuous and, therefore, libelous; or he is too insufficiently adept at oration/rhetoric to understand the message his technique conveys to his intended audience.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 7:20 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 06-23-2010 4:05 PM Blue Jay has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 122 (566199)
06-23-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by onifre
06-23-2010 1:13 PM


Re: affecting me
What does that have to do with being conservative? or what does that have to do with being able to adjust to change?
Heh, nothing really. I was thinking about what would suck, and came up with that.
Reading back it looks different than what I was meaning to say.
What about spontaneous abortions or aborting an embryo, before it's even a fetus... how can these be considered murder of a fetus?
Well, obviously if its not a fetus then its not murdering a fetus. General blanket statements like that don't ever stand up to scrutiny. Don't mean I won't say it though!
Weird though, at least to me, that you would be pro the choice to comit murder.
Ultimately, the life of the fetus does depend on the mother's choices. If she really want to not be pregnant, its not going to help to legally force her to be pregnant. Plus, my opinions on the morallity of the situation are not something to base laws on. We don't really have a legal person here that murder has been commited against. At the end of the day, its better for that choice to be available, even if I don't like the smell of it.
Everything that happens in your state has some effect on you.
Give me an example of how 2 gay people signing a piece of paper in your state effects you.
Likewise give me an example of how someone having an abortion in your state effects you.
I here you saying it but I just don't see how it can.
Like I said, you're position is based on incredulity. Now, you have claimed that it would not have an effect, so where's the support for that?
Abortions take place every day, ALL of them without my knowledge. How on earth am I effected by it?
You're a part of the culture. As the culture goes through changes in what it feels is okay to do, its inevitable that it will have some affect on you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by onifre, posted 06-23-2010 1:13 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by onifre, posted 06-23-2010 4:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9944
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 68 of 122 (566228)
06-23-2010 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by Hyroglyphx
06-23-2010 9:14 AM


Re: Know what a NeoCon is?
[Social Security's] catastrophic failure is why you or I will most likely never see a dime of what we're supposedly entitled to. It's going bankrupt, which is the inevitable result of all socialist systems of this magnitude.
Are you saying that you are against any social program like SS or do you think SS was poorly implemented?
When it comes to fiscal policies, I lean to the right. Rest assured, however, that I don't trust corporations. I trust a competitive market that drives down costs, raises innovation, which ensures I get the best product for less.
Then why do we pay more for health care per capita than people who live in countries with nationalized health care? Why do you trust corporations to run our health care industry? Or is this a case of the lesser of two evils?
Corporatism, which typify neo-conservative thought, is a protection of private business at the expense of the citizen. For instance, the corporate bail-outs, which both neo-conservatives and progressives wanted, is a prime example of corporatism.
I agree with the sentiment, but in this most recent case I don't think there was a choice. If the banking system failed we would have seen the next Great Depression.
Government is necessary, which means taxation is necessary. However, the amount of wasteful and unnecessary programs that exist, along with the ineptitude of the IRS simply highlights why we have a 13 trillion dollar debt.
Ok, thanks for the clarification.
It's just more and more encroachment in to your personal life.
Maybe it is just me, but it seems to me that both sides of the aisle see no problem with encroaching into other people's lives as long as it isn't them. The majority of conservatives are pro-life. They want to get between you and your doctor, a very very private matter. Conservatives want to tell you what you can grow in your backyard, who you can marry, and how you die. It baffles me why someone would want to be aligned with conservatives in congress when they have such a long list of personal liberties that they either actively deny the populace or are trying to deny. "Promoting family values" means nothing more than denying people rights that make conservatives uncomfortable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-23-2010 9:14 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-24-2010 11:17 AM Taq has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7799
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 69 of 122 (566233)
06-23-2010 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Blue Jay
06-23-2010 1:49 PM


Re: Generalised Libel?
How do you feel about the other half of my sentence:
Bluejay writes:
...or (2) that you, the intended audience, are liable to go and do X, unless you are warned not to.
I think it relies on reading something in the worst possible way, rather than trying to understand the point the author is actually trying to make.
I don’t think he’s actually trying to make this argument: I think he’s using a rhetorical device that makes it sound like all conservatives use teleprompters and have gay sex.
This is dishonest, and, therefore, libelous.
So what you are saying is, you think his writing is sloppy and might be interpreted by some people to insinuate conservatives all have gay sex while decrying it? So what - that isn't the message he is trying to convey - as the context surrounding it amply displays.
You can make a case for libelous - but it would like the BCA's case against Simon Singh. Nonsense, relying on a single interpretation of the piece and ignoring the context the piece itself sets up.
Perhaps I've made the mistake of assuming that the device was intentional, when it could very well be accidental. This is another point that I'll glad concede.
I'd think you'd have a stronger point if he said 'you do this, you do that, you do this other thing'.
Personally, yes, it is my opinion that people can redeem themselves after making bad mistakes.
I wasn't asking about redemption. The author clearly believes the party is capable of reforming, since it is his point that it needs to be done.
If King said:
Dear criminals,
If you want society to treat you well:
You can't go around stealing things.
You can't go arout murdering people
etc
That isn't to say all criminals commit murder, for example. And the question I would be asking you in that case is - Do you think criminals can continue to commit crimes and expect society to treat them as well as people that don't?
Do you think that a group which elects people that lie, engage in hypocrisy, hyperbole etc - who spokespersons have all the traits described in the article can continue to lie, engage in hyperbole and at the same time - be seen as rational, responsbile and reasonable people?
I say you can't. So does King.
The formula is You can’t do X, with a link to a reference about somebody doing X (which I didn’t provide in my parody: but I figured everybody knew what I was talking about).
In King’s case, X is hypocrisy. In my case, X is infidelity.
And the example you gave - I'd say it was fine and not libellous. I think the last guy that was caught doing that got a severe telling off by everybody, right?
So you you might be right - if you want to be thought of as credible, you can't lie to the person you said you loved the most.
The reference is an evidence of guilt. Addressing his comments to you, the intended audience, is a grammatical and rhetorical device that associates this guilt with you, the intended audience.
They do have some responsibility - that's Kings point. He doesn't suggest all Conservatives do those things - he's reminding his audience that their representatives do (by linking them to those events) and calling for them to sort it out. It is a political group, democratic in nature: The supporters are respsonsible for their representatives. Not totally - if Conservatives joined together and called for the resignation of the representatives that did some of the terrible things pointed - they would be taking control of their party and showing their credibility as reasonable people. It was easy enough to get ACORN taken out, right?
...and was using second person while pointing them out, thereby grammatically associating the listed actions with you, the intended audience.
Not associating the actions, associating responsibility for sorting them out.
Unless he feels that you, the intended audience, are guilty of doing the listed actions or are liable to do the listed actions, or wants you, the intended audience, to think they share in the guilt; using this device is highly inappropriate.
Not necessarily. It is certainly possible, but it isn't necessarily so.
So, perhaps I should amend my position to say that, either King is being disingenuous and, therefore, libelous; or he is too insufficiently adept at oration/rhetoric to understand the message his technique conveys to his intended audience.
Maybe. Or maybe he wasn't talking to the people that go into knee-jerk interpret this guys words in the worst possible way mode. Maybe he was appealing to the reasonable elements in the party, and yes he was using the rhetorical ploy of spreading a feeling of shame. And if my representatives were acting like he has claimed the conservatives reps are...I'd be ashamed.
If the person reading it dismisses the comments as 'biased liberal slander' then that person wasn't the intended audience. If they think, 'Yeah, there are a lot of jackasses that have hijacked the Grand Old Party to be the party that appeals to base emotions to drum up support rather than rational arguments and calm elucidation of our core values.' then they were the intended audience.
Sure - he's not the perfect writer, and there are probably superior ways to communicate the ideas...but I think libellous is going a little overboard
Edited by Modulous, : It was chiropracters, not homeopaths that went after Singh - my bad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Blue Jay, posted 06-23-2010 1:49 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Blue Jay, posted 06-28-2010 6:13 PM Modulous has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 70 of 122 (566237)
06-23-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 2:21 PM


Re: affecting me
General blanket statements like that don't ever stand up to scrutiny. Don't mean I won't say it though!
I expect no less, dude.
We don't really have a legal person here that murder has been commited against.
I agree, and to me that's the rational opinion arrived at from a logical perspective free of emotions. However, at no point then could it be said that someone murdered a fetus, embryo or what have you, other than just to add a death-tone to the matter. Murder is an derived from a legal stand point.
Killed a fetus, sure. Just like, "I killed the plant."
At the end of the day, its better for that choice to be available, even if I don't like the smell of it.
Cool. I like there to be a choice because honestly I don't care what happens to a fetus. The only fetus that has ever concerned me have been the two that were in my ex-wife 13 and 11 years ago.
Other that, I usually think more about how sad it is that living human beings (children up to adults) are starving and die each day. That actually bothers me a lot.
Now, you have claimed that it would not have an effect, so where's the support for that?
Not exactly, I claimed (predict) that the same argument for why it doesn't affect you if the person lives in California would be the same argument for why it doesn't concern you if the person lives in your state. But I still haven't gotten the argument as to why it would be different in another state than in your own state (from AE) so I can only predict that it's the same for now.
But what you're asking me to do is to prove a negative, which I can't do - you know that.
First thing we'd have to establish is what would be considered an "effect." To me, living in a state where abortions are legal, I don't see any effects on my life. Abortions take place everyday here in Florida and I'm completely oblivious to them. That's proof for me that there is no effect from it.
Also, I've been to all the states where gay (same-sex) marriage is legal (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.) - before and after the law - and see absolutely no difference in the states, or the people I know who live there. This is proof to me.
But again, you've asked me to prove a negative, which I can't do, so this is what I'm going with as proof.
You're a part of the culture. As the culture goes through changes in what it feels is okay to do, its inevitable that it will have some affect on you.
Ok, but then you'd be against it all together, not just in your state. It's the same culture, minus a few local nuances.
But what are the effects?
Lets take the Civil Right's movement. It had the effect that now blacks drink from the same water fountain as whites do. Some whites had to "deal with that," right? Another effect was integrated schools, that's something else some whites had to deal with.
Now, what would be an example of an effect from same-sex marriage or abortion? Just one example from each.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 2:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 5:04 PM onifre has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 122 (566245)
06-23-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by onifre
06-23-2010 4:28 PM


Re: affecting me
Now, you have claimed that it would not have an effect, so where's the support for that?
Not exactly,
Message 21:
quote:
My question is, why care if they wanted to get married or abort a pregnancy in Virginia?
It doesn't affect him in any way, whether it be someone in California, Alaska or Virginia. These type of social policies don't affect anyone but the individual it concerns.
Message 22:
quote:
But a gay person getting married or a teenager that terminates a pregancy in California, Alaska or Virginia doesn't affect you in any way. So why concern yourself with it at all?
That's pretty much exactly...
You're claiming there's not gonna be an effect. And you're basing it on incredulity because you can't think of what an effect might be. That doesn't mean there isn't gonna be one.
Granted, from Message 30:
quote:
Perhaps he's one of those people who think allowing gay marriage will cause some sort of upheavel in society.
Right, but then he should be concerned for all of the US in that case, not just Virginia. Or, not care at all even in Virginia.
I claimed (predict) that the same argument for why it doesn't affect you if the person lives in California would be the same argument for why it doesn't concern you if the person lives in your state. But I still haven't gotten the argument as to why it would be different in another state than in your own state (from AE) so I can only predict that it's the same for now.
and
You're a part of the culture. As the culture goes through changes in what it feels is okay to do, its inevitable that it will have some affect on you.
Ok, but then you'd be against it all together, not just in your state. It's the same culture, minus a few local nuances.
I don't think so. The idea is that other states are allowed to go about their business and you and your state are allowed to go about yours. I wouldn't say that the culture of California is the same as, say, Arkansas. If fact, they're quite different. Now, you can zoom out and say the US is one big culture, and try to continue your argument, but that's glossing over the whole point of looking at the states individually and as different cultures with different issues. Likewise, you could zoom in and see differences between various counties and argue for differences there and say the state level is too zoomed out. But this is the United States of America, where we draw the line at the state level and then unite ourselves from there.
But what are the effects?
Lets take the Civil Right's movement. It had the effect that now blacks drink from the same water fountain as whites do. Some whites had to "deal with that," right? Another effect was integrated schools, that's something else some whites had to deal with.
Now, what would be an example of an effect from same-sex marriage or abortion? Just one example from each.
Abortion: reduction in the personhood attributed to unborn people resulting in less humanity, in general, towards future generations.
Gay Marriage: breakdown of traditional family values and/or the standard family unit resulting in less formal and possibly less stable family structures that children rely on for social growth.
But I just now made those up off the top of my head, and I don't necessarily totally agree with them, but I'm trying to get across the kinds of things I think other, more strongly, conservative people might think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by onifre, posted 06-23-2010 4:28 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by onifre, posted 06-24-2010 10:11 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 72 of 122 (566273)
06-23-2010 11:08 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 12:57 PM


Re: affecting me
Its not so bad... I'm not broke and uneducated, that's pretty sweet.
And did you grow up in Conservatopia, or in the real world?
Everything that happens in your state has some effect on you.
No it doesn't. Somewhere in my state someone just decided to have extra cheese on his burger. It's no skin off my nose.
This is the very basis of our concept of personal liberty. To quote Thomas Jefferson, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. If everything that happened in my state affected me, then I would have a right to have a say on everything that happened in my state. But it doesn't, so I don't. It's none of my darn business.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 12:57 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 73 of 122 (566274)
06-23-2010 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 12:21 PM


Sure, but what does that have to do with not-voting following from not-caring?
You're quite right, I just committed the fallacy known technically as Affirming The Consequent.
In my defense, I would point out that, as I said, I was really dog-tired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 12:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2941 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 74 of 122 (566340)
06-24-2010 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by New Cat's Eye
06-23-2010 5:04 PM


Re: affecting me
You're claiming there's not gonna be an effect. And you're basing it on incredulity because you can't think of what an effect might be. That doesn't mean there isn't gonna be one.
In those two quotes, yes, that's what I'm claiming. But my over-all point was that there is no reason to not care what happens in Cali because you don't live there, and then care about your own state with social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, because, the argument for why Cali doesn't effect you/AE is the same argument as to why it happening in his own state won't effect him.
I hope that made sense.
What I mean by "there is no effect" is, there is no effect in the same sense that Cali doesn't effect him in Virginia.
I wouldn't say that the culture of California is the same as, say, Arkansas. If fact, they're quite different.
Not at all. There is plenty of "country folk" in California and there are plenty of artsy liberals in Arkansas. You're picking the places in California that the media and TV show us, but that's not all of California at all. By a long shot. You get out into the northern part of California and you'll have no idea you're in what you conceptually think of as "California."
Now, you can zoom out and say the US is one big culture, and try to continue your argument, but that's glossing over the whole point of looking at the states individually and as different cultures with different issues. Likewise, you could zoom in and see differences between various counties and argue for differences there and say the state level is too zoomed out. But this is the United States of America, where we draw the line at the state level and then unite ourselves from there.
Certain issues like abortion, same-sex marriage - just like civil rights and the women's liberation movement - aren't just state issues and effect the nation as a whole. Laws dealing with these social issues aren't made based on a cultural acceptance of it, they are made because it is the fair and proper thing to do. Just because the culture of the south didn't want blacks in their schools doesn't mean the culture has the right to stick to that, and it definitely doesn't give them majority rule over the suffering minorities.
Abortion: reduction in the personhood attributed to unborn people resulting in less humanity, in general, towards future generations.
How does it happening legally in California not have an effect in Virginia, if you are claiming it effects in general all of humanity?
If it effects all of humanity then California should be a concern as well. But if it actually doesn't have this catistrophic effect on humanity, and is in fact unevidenced non-sense, then it can be ignored as an action that has no evidenced effect on humanity and all of it's many diverse cultures.
So now the question is, is that non-sense or a solid case?
I'm not denying the potential for ridiculous claims on how abortion or same-sex marriage can effect society, just as I'm sure there where many ridiculous claims on how ending segregation or giving women their rights would effect society in a negative way. I get that people who fear change will make shit up. But then that was my point for asking for an example of an effect; it'll show how unevidenced these effects are.
Even you said:
quote:
I don't necessarily totally agree with them
Gay Marriage: breakdown of traditional family values and/or the standard family unit resulting in less formal and possibly less stable family structures that children rely on for social growth.
Here again, it would be the breakdown of the entire American family, and not just the breakdown of Virginia families because of their unique culture.
I'm trying to get across the kinds of things I think other, more strongly, conservative people might think.
Righhhhttttt
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-23-2010 5:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2010 10:38 AM onifre has replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4219 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 75 of 122 (566344)
06-24-2010 10:25 AM


mostly for CS, Qni, and DR.A
taq writes:
Hmf. Required health insurance in industry, new taxes, improvement of infrastructure, social welfare . . . all of the things that modern conservatives are against. Was Teddy Roosevelt for these things? If so, would you still consider him one of the best Republicans ever?
I figured you would take most of that out of context.
In 1912 things were much different that they are 98 years later. Health insurance in industry is due to the fact that there were none, or not much of anything. There was no standard work week, no child labor laws, anyone could be worked all day every day for pennies on the dollar with no thought of the welfare of the laborers. I find it very dishonest for you to try and use 1912 instances and apply them to issues today, well dishonest or ignorant, but I doubt you are ignorant.
Once again you compare this to modern conservatives, then ask if Teddy was a good republican. You are comparing apples and oranges in your own question. One does not have to a good modern conservative (something that Teddy was definitely not), to be a good republican (heck there are even conservative democrats). Conservatives do not equal Republicans, and vice versa. Besides Teddy was not Elected out of the Bull Moose party, when he was the 26th president, he was a republican. And BTW he was one of the best Republican Presidents, for sure.
Dr Adequate writes:
think you're being needlessly unpleasant, and heck, this is me talking.
Yeah looking back I was a bit off my rocker the other day. I decided to try and quit nicotine on Monday. I have been the most irritable guy all fricken week. Sry bout that, today is day 4 and while technically its just as bad as day 3, the fact that I have been nicotine free for 3+ days makes me think I can do a week.
Dr Adequate writes:
To clear up further confusion, let's just ask this. If your state had a referendum on making gay marriage legal, how would you vote?
Well I have already given plenty of evidence here that someone could probably guess how I would vote accurately. Unfortunately you people ask the same BS questions over and over again, even though I keep answering them, here goes again. In a referendum on Gay Marriage here in The Commonwealth of Virginia, I would more than likely abstain. I probably would not vote. I really don’t care either way (for the umteenth time), yay or nay. I’m content with the outcome.
Qnifre writes:
So your response is that, only things that happen in your state concern you because it can affect you - and I get that. But the examples you give of gay marriage and abortion (or as you called it, "mudering a fetus") wouldn't affect you even in your own state, so why the fuck bring those up as examples? And the way you use the examples, saying that you don't care what happens in Cali because you won't ever live there, indicates that you DO care if these things take place in VA because you do live there.
The repetition required around here to get your point across is tiring. See you are reading into what I said and looking past the plain facts of what I said into what did I mean by the way that I said what I said. This is something girls do, with led me to try and determine your gender. Look dude don’t read into it. There is no mystery. Killing infants, and homosexual marriage does not concern, no matter how I say it and no matter what you think I am trying to say. (I am trying to make this plain and simple so please don’t read into it). Next time when discussing something with you I will make sure to use issues that I do care about, like legalizing weed, and abolishing gun control, two issues that applies better to California, instead of abortion (all states) and Gay Marriage (something not legal in CA anyway). As I said previously, you get hung up on insignificant example that really don’t even apply to CA.
Onifre writes:
Now you want to back pedal and pretend that I've misunderstood something, fine, I don't care. You want to resort to name calling, cool, I don't give a fuck either. It would be better if you would man up and defend what you meant, or explain it better, but that would mean you'd have to break out of your typical passive aggressive way of debating, so I won't get my hopes up.
I do not know how to better explain it to you. It seems like other people understand me, which led me to think that you are just pretending not to get it.
I'm the guy who bangs your mom when your dad is out blowing men.
LOL. Where did I hear that before? Do you get your material like Carlos MenSTEALia?
Oh look, another internet tough guy. This looks like the punchline to the joke, "What did one nerd say to the other nerd?"
Hey I just call em like I see em. I call a bitch when I see one. Unless her man is more man than me, and I’m not ccw that day.
Catholic Scientist writes:
If your state had a referendum on making gay marriage legal, how would you vote?
If you really didn't care, then you wouldn't vote, right?
HOLY SHIT!
See I told you other people where out there and paying attention. This Guy understood, and reasonably with my previous posts as evidence accurately guessed how I would vote. I am almost stunned. I was beginning to think there were no thinkers on here.
Onifre writes:
Either way, according to AE he doesn't care. Apparently he's pro-choice (even though he used the phrase "murdering a fetus," and threw in atheist and muslims when saying he didn't care about gays getting married -- but only in California because it doesn't affect him.
Abortion is murder and morally wrong, but I would not vote to take away someone else’s choice. That is libertarianism, IMO. Being a Neo-Nazi is bad IMHO, but they have the same right to march peacefully down the street to demonstrate their beliefs just as, other crazy people, like the million mom march does, and me and the crazy NRA guys do as well. Also I cannot keep you from drawing your own crazy conclusions from what I say, no matter how many times I explain, so have fun I guess.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Well, obviously if its not a fetus then its not murdering a fetus. General blanket statements like that don't ever stand up to scrutiny. Don't mean I won't say it though!
If you are really Catholic, Life begins at conception. It’s a person immediately at any temporal point after conception, and is always murder. But I am not female, so It will never be my choice, and I choose to make sure that it is always the female’s choice (if I was ever to vote on it).

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Taq, posted 06-24-2010 11:05 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied
 Message 78 by onifre, posted 06-24-2010 11:10 AM Artemis Entreri has replied
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-24-2010 11:34 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024