posted
Because many people have secret motivations and or hidden self-delusions. Do you know any people?
Is it unaccountably perverse of me to suggest that someone who spends his time accusing others of secret motivations and hidden self-delusions may be secretly motivated and or self-deluded? I think not.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, after reading more WorldWatch articles, I must say that dear orson is quite the card (ahaha!). He has some pretty *ahem* interesting opinions on gays and lesbians. It's all very entertaining to read, but maybe somewhat depressing considering I'm such a great admirer of his books. In other words, I would laugh hysterically if I weren't so busy crying...
I can see the allure in thinking that it's "some kind of deep game from which OSC is hoping to get something he wants down the line" but I must confess, I think he's serious. All the more reason to be depressed, I guess.
How can the person who wrote Ender's Game have written these WorldWatch articles? Ender's Game was about empathy, and generally, I don't peg blatant homophobes as knowing the meaning of that word. Let's force the government to penalize homosexuals for their purely biological impulses! Sounds good, whacko!
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by haihaihaihailovely: Well, after reading more WorldWatch articles, I must say that dear orson is quite the card (ahaha!). He has some pretty *ahem* interesting opinions on gays and lesbians. It's all very entertaining to read, but maybe somewhat depressing considering I'm such a great admirer of his books. In other words, I would laugh hysterically if I weren't so busy crying...
I can see the allure in thinking that it's "some kind of deep game from which OSC is hoping to get something he wants down the line" but I must confess, I think he's serious. All the more reason to be depressed, I guess.
How can the person who wrote Ender's Game have written these WorldWatch articles? Ender's Game was about empathy, and generally, I don't peg blatant homophobes as knowing the meaning of that word. Let's force the government to penalize homosexuals for their purely biological impulses! Sounds good, whacko!
There are many people who have biological impulses to rape and kill, but unfortunately the government penalizes them as well. Alas when we don't get to do exactly what our biological impulses tell us.
On a slightly more serious note, is there any serious evidence at all that homosexuality is biological? Within the homosexual community there are some who thought they were gay, but it was just a phase that they passed. Others are gay, but still marry and have families. Others still remain gay, period. Yet through all this nobody knows whether homosexuality is some biological trait.
And I think you're vastly simplifying Ender's Game. It's just, oh I can empathize with somebody and therefore.....what, I just do nothing because now I understand them? It's like "Oh hey, my 15 year old daughter is infatuated with some punk boy and wants to be sexually active." Everybody on this planet can empthasize with that and yet her parents can still say "no we know what you feel, and this is something that will make you unhappy for a long time, but you will not be sexually active because you are unready and unprepared for the consequences."
edit:
I'm not going to respond to every one of the OP's points, because I agree that many of them were indeed stupid things Bush just shouldn't have done but which may or may not have been useful. However, in the following point:
- Turning the entire War on Terror into an act-before-thinking trillion-dollar farce against people who had no role in attacking us on 9/11, and then capitalizing on American fear and grief to turn 3,000 American deaths into a trillion-dollar farce costing us twice that many dead soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives. Hiring private "contractors" (read: mercenaries) who shoot first and ask questions never.
This is a point that I just keep hearing and am thoroughly sick of. Here's the bottom line: you do not go to war with somebody just because they hit you. If country A attacks country B, country B does not attack A back because of the attack. You can certainly use the original attack as justification or for morale purposes, but not as the goal. This is because there is no goal; it's just simply revenge. This is why Clinton's actions in Bosnia and Kosovo were just plain stupid (and OSC has said this).
The reason you go to war, the goal, is to prevent that country or person or group or whatever from doing any harm or further harm. Now usually, if a country attacks you then it obviously has the capacity and will to do it again and that's why, in general, when a country attacks you you attack back. In this case, our enemy is global terrorism and if you see a country that uses biological weapons on its own people, they've got well-known terrorists like Abu-Abbas, and a cut-throat dictator, then there are people such as OSC and Bush who think that Iraq is an achievable worthwhile long-term strategic goal.
Can you disagree with their opinions and use the aftermath of not finding WMDs, etc. to say I told you so? Certainly, but there shouldn't be anybody who's read and enjoyed Ender's Game that would be SHOCKED at those views. Or that those views do not adhere to basic military doctrine.
quote:On a slightly more serious note, is there any serious evidence at all that homosexuality is biological?
There's serious evidence about the biological factors that play into the way that people express homosexuality. So far as of yet, there's too much mystery behind it to come up with a conclusive answer to the question behind how one's sexual orientation is determined.
quote:I can see the allure in thinking that it's "some kind of deep game from which OSC is hoping to get something he wants down the line" but I must confess, I think he's serious.
Pretty much the worst thing I can do for Card is take him seriously when he says some of the things he says. But I believe he's very serious, and it's why public perception of him has shifted to open vitriol of his homophobic* views.
*given the common definition of homophobic, yes, Card qualifies.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are many people who have biological impulses to rape and kill, but unfortunately the government penalizes them as well. Alas when we don't get to do exactly what our biological impulses tell us. "
You're missing the point. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but you aren't biologically programmed to kill or rape. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are biologically programmed to be attracted to members of the same sex. It might be a genetic *abnormality*, but so are numerous genetic traits and diseases. I don't hear OSC shouting to have people with dwarfism banned from participating in marriage - but where in the Bible does it say these people are included in the definition of the act?
What gets to me about religious homophobes is the sheer arrogance that comes with thinking you can interpret God's will for an individual better than that individual! The Bible is full of passages telling you to be humble and not judgmental, but these people are the most arrogant and judgmental of them all (in thinking their judgment is a proxy for God's will).
Yes, you can read something in The Bible and interpret it one way, but you must be blind to think there aren't any other interpretations. At best, religion should define your personal relationship with God, but given the huge potential for individual error, I fail to see how you can justify using it to control others.
And this is especially true for an issue like gay marriage, which doesn't even harm non-gays. Chances are, you wouldn't even KNOW if a gay person was married in your neighborhood.
Then to use your personal religion to force rules on a secular nation -it's simply ludicrous. It's bad enough to do this with fellow Christians, but to use Christianity to control non-Christians?!?! To me, this can only be explained by ignorance...
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:this is especially true for an issue like gay marriage, which doesn't even harm non-gays
I firmly support same-sex marriage. But honesty compels me to note that the argument against same-sex marriage assumes that it does in fact harm non-gays by doing fundamental damage to the institution of marriage.
Now, I don't happen to believe that it does that damage. But the people who oppose same-sex marriage do believe that, so saying that it doesn't affect them is a non-starter.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: You're missing the point. Perhaps I could have worded it better, but you aren't biologically programmed to kill or rape. Homosexuals, on the other hand, are biologically programmed to be attracted to members of the same sex. It might be a genetic *abnormality*, but so are numerous genetic traits and diseases. I don't hear OSC shouting to have people with dwarfism banned from participating in marriage - but where in the Bible does it say these people are included in the definition of the act?
Now you're using two different uses of the word "programmed". Murderers and rapists are also programmed, but the difference between them and everybody else is they actually choose to do whatever it is that comes into their mind.
But your point is that since gays are programmed to do something, why should we punish them? Which is a dumb argument because everybody is programmed to feel certain impulses, have certain desires, or want certain things but that doesn't mean we should just be allowed to have that.
There's a corrupt boss feels a deep need to be rich. Should we let him just steal money? My little cousin feels the need to stuff his face with ice-cream whenever he feels like it. Should we let him do this?
Again, this doesn't say anything about gay marriage, all it says is that you can't use the "Oh but it's just their biological impulse/programming!" argument.
Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in the very least it seems that most historians disagree with OSC about how Bush measures as a president.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, the validity of the crux of the argument is that we who make it believe that in the case of gays, doing "gay stuff" doesn't hurt other people. There are loads of things we are programmed to do, and we only care about the stuff that hurts other people, not the stuff that either has no effect, or helps others. A case could be made that gays help each other by loving and caring for one another, making it a good thing.
Likening homosexuality to criminal behavior begs the question of whether homosexuality is immoral. The problem with your analogies is that all of those things are clearly immoral, and have clear cut consequences to back that up. But with homosexuality, no tangible moral consequence can be found (because one does not exist...), and you have only compared homosexuality to a bunch of things it is clearly not, and said: "what about this stuff???" As if simply naming other things people naturally do is a good way of convincing people that they should be against something else that happens naturally to people.
Using your logic, I can just replace homosexuality with heterosexuality, and say: "just because you are pre-programmed to want to mate with a member of the opposite sex doesn't make it right!" There is no moral injury there, and so it's equally ridiculous. We just slip further into that myre when we start trying to defend the "natural state" of marriage, because it is an artificial institution. One thing we actually aren't programmed to do, but which instead has been constructed by society as a part of culture, is marriage itself. It's not even strictly natural, and so even talking about marriage in the same breath as things we naturally do, and things that should be allowed within marriage for being "natural," is a bit silly of us.
But I'm firmly of the opinion that society evolves to meet its own needs. Currently, society needs to understand homosexuality and accept it within itself in order to be at peace. I'm quite happy to be on what I am quite certain will be the winning end of this little chapter in our history.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, another one bites the dust. Let's trying explaining this using another word. "Biologically programmed" - hmmmm... what do you think this means? As I said before, I probably used the wrong word. The phrase I should have used is 'genetically programmed' (and to me, it seems clear that this was the intended meaning). People are genetically programmed to be gay (just as people with dwarfism are genetically programmed to be dwarfs). Are other people genetically programmed to be killers and rapists? My answer to this question would be a big emphatic NO.
Wait, you might say, certain people (e.g. sociopaths) obviously have an increased tendency to become murderers and rapists. Well, assuming this is genetic (I would think it's at least partly genetic) there is still the issue of CHOICE. Gay people, no matter what your pastor says, do not choose to be gay. Murderers and rapists on the other hand, make the choice to kill and rape, so it is still not equivalent.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the basic idea is this: homosexuals (maybe not all, but at least some) are 'genetically programmed' to like the 'wrong' sex. This isn't something that they choose, but it is forced upon them.
Since being homosexual doesn't hurt anyone and since it was forced on them in the first place, there is no reason why we should PUNISH homosexuals for something that is beyond their control.
It's not normal to be homosexual. It's also not normal to have dwarfism, to have epilepsy, or to be blind. But our society has a general policy of INCLUSION for these latter groups and there is no reason why this shouldn't extend to homosexuals. It's not asking you to treat them any better - just don't treat them any worse.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your argument is starting to fall apart, hai.
Consider for a moment that many people might well be genetically predisposed to pedophilia or rape or violence. They are able to control their urges for a variety of reasons.
By the same logic, someone who is genetically predisposed to have sex with people of the same gender might be able to control his or her urges for similar reasons.
We "punish" pedophiles by telling them that they cannot have sex with children, even though that might be the only sort of sex they desire. Is it wrong to do so?
(Answer: it is wrong to do so only if there is no harm involved in enacting the desire.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Because many people have secret motivations and or hidden self-delusions. Do you know any people?
Is it unaccountably perverse of me to suggest that someone who spends his time accusing others of secret motivations and hidden self-delusions may be secretly motivated and or self-deluded? I think not.
I think so. Because instead of explaining the multitude of colossal failures the Bush administration has made and why that makes OSC's observations incorrect, you've made a personal comment about something you acknowledge you don't really know anything about. Solid arguments are always better than speculation.
And even if you're right that OSC does the same thing, which I'm not acknowledging, that would only make you the same as what you are professing to disagree with. Any way you look at it, it's "perverse."
Posts: 32 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
Is there some kind of moral equivalent between pedophilia and homosexuality that I'm missing?
In case you can't read (I take it for granted that you can't *think*) homosexuality doesn't actually hurt anybody. To state the obvious, pedophilia hurts kids. On second thought, that might not be so obvious to you.
I agree 100% that a homosexual can control their urges to have sex with people of the same sex. It really isn't that hard to believe, as straight people can abstain from sex too.
But to say that we should FORCE homosexuals to abstain from sex, even when 1) they did not choose to be homosexual, and 2) it doesn't hurt anybody else, is just stupid.
Are you really so stupid that you can't figure this out yourself? This is exactly why -reason numero uno - why people like you should NOT have any kind of control over the actions of others. Your weird, twisted, and illogical sense of ethics is so far removed from what is actually right in society that you should just shut up and stay home. By all means, keep your ignorant and misguided opinions-- but don't let them extend beyond the 'real christian folk' like yourself.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hai, you need to think before you post because clearly Tom said in this thread
quote: I firmly support same-sex marriage.
Thus he is on "your side" in this issue (and now you're just being ignorant by pretending to know what religion he believes in).
What we're simply pointing out is that your argument does not work. The things you are talking about that are choice-driven are things that have, at their core, the same type of genetic programming that homosexuals have.
What you should be arguing about is everything you have clearly take for granted such as "it doesn't hurt anybody else."
Posts: 56 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
1. homosexuality has a genetic basis. it is not something that people make a choice about. (they are not only engaging in deviant behavior)
2. it also doesn't hurt anybody.
3. Therefore, it is wrong for the government to take action against homosexuality
Response:
1. Some people said the genetic basis argument is 'flawed' because things like rape, murder, and pedophilia have a genetic basis too.
My response:
1. While it is true that rape and murder might have a genetic basis, they are fundamentally issues of CHOICE. The homosexual does not choose to like people of the same sex.
Again, their response:
1. This above issue of CHOICE is flawed because pedophiles have the same sexual urges, yet they still choose not to have sex with children.
And my response:
1. I agree that homosexuals can make the same kind of choice (to not act on their desires for members of the opposite sex). But there is no reason to force them to do so (and here is where I misunderstood TomDavidson's post) because there is a fundamental moral difference between pedophilia and homosexuality. I thought that TD was ignoring the 2nd part of my argument (that it doesn't hurt somebody).
2. I thought TD was saying that if my argument were correct then pedophiles should also be allowed to have sex with children. I thought it was really stupid for him to say so, given that there is a huge moral gap between pedophilia and homosexuality. I was watching TV while I typed, sorry for the misread.
------ Then why worry about my first point at all?
Naturally, governments should protect *fundamental and natural rights.* If a person is born a certain way (i.e. with certain 'rights'), then they are entitled to the protection of these rights UNLESS it harms other people.
I take it for granted that the government is more obligated to protect *natural rights* (as opposed to deviant behaviors) so the first point (that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual) was important to my argument.
Posts: 8 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
Is there some kind of moral equivalent between pedophilia and homosexuality that I'm missing?
In case you can't read (I take it for granted that you can't *think*) homosexuality doesn't actually hurt anybody.
To state the obvious, pedophilia hurts kids. On second thought, that might not be so obvious to you.
Well others have pretty much covered how you missed Tom's point, but I just gotta say how much I love the statement "Dude, are you menatlly retarded?"
quote:I take it for granted that the government is more obligated to protect *natural rights* (as opposed to deviant behaviors) so the first point (that homosexuals do not choose to be homosexual) was important to my argument.
Yanno, you should probably read up on naturalistic fallacy. Where are we getting these distinctions about what is 'natural' and 'unnatural?' It's just as fallacious to say that 'homosexuality is unnatural' as it is to say that 'homosexuality is natural, but rape isn't'
Oh no, sir. Rape is very much natural. And as demonstrated by species like the bedbug, Homosexual Stabbing Rape is very much natural.
Perhaps the government shouldn't be enforcing things based on subjective 'naturality,' hm?
/ EDIT-U HAI DOMOKUN:
quote:1. homosexuality has a genetic basis. it is not something that people make a choice about. (they are not only engaging in deviant behavior)
Now, are you making up science's mind for the benefit of the behavioralists and biologists? Because in actuality they are hesitant to definitely claim a genetic basis in ways that support your argument, what with a lack of conclusive findings, and all.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* The point is this: many behaviors to which people are genetically predisposed are illegal or socially unacceptable. This is not in all cases a bad thing; rather, it is perfectly justifiable if the behavior in question does harm.
So the question becomes: is homosexual behavior inherently harmful? If the answer is "yes," then whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component is absolutely irrelevant. If, like me, you believe the answer is "no," then legislating against homosexuality appears to be a form of bigotry.
But the important thing to keep in mind is that THIS is the core question. It's also worth noting that, even to many otherwise intelligent and reasonable people, this is still an open question. I believe quite strongly that history will prove me right on this one, but I am genuinely sorrowful for those people who, far from being drooling neanderthals, simply start from premises that have led them to reluctantly come down on the other -- wrong -- side of the issue.
--------
quote:I take it for granted that the government is more obligated to protect *natural rights* (as opposed to deviant behaviors)
Can you explain to me what you think the distinction between a right and a behavior is?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down a bit. Calling people stupid or mentally retarded because they disagree with you is far from acceptable. Please try not to operate from the position that anyone who disagrees with you is mentally deficient. You're allowed to believe just about anything here, and believe it strongly, as long as you keep a reasonable tone in presenting it (there are a couple exceptions, but unless you go there you won't hear from me).
You can also edit your posts (the little pen-and-paper icon at the top of each post), and if you were to remove those comments I believe it would demonstrate some goodwill.
posted
The thing I really hate about these discussions is that everyone involved seems to think the answers are both obvious and simple.
It's as though if only the President of the US would listen to your ideas, then everything would have ended up just dandy.
Sure it would. Sure you (or I) have a clue as to what is or isn't going on out there.
On that point, Michael Yon made a very insightful statement. In his view, even the average battalion commander on the ground didn't have the best picture. It was only when he (Yon) made a habit of talking to as many Commanders as possible, in addition to as many soldiers as possible in every district in Iraq, that he began to get an idea of what was really going on.
I remember when Clinton was in office, I and other members of the Republican club in college hated him with a passion. Nothing the man did was any good.
Pacify Bosnia? He's just pandering to Muslims in an illegal nation building strategy (notice the incredible irony there).
Attack Afghanistan? Wag the dog.
Of course, NOW I see that Pres. Clinton wasn't just right, but that it was guys like ME who were holding him back. Yes, that's right. I was one of many people who, by bitching and carping, made it more difficult for him to do his job.
Based on what I've seen in the past, I've made the decision that when it comes to foreign policy I am going to give the current President the benefit of the doubt. There is only one issue on foreign policy that I may disagree with him on. But in general, he has my support. The decisions he will have to make are horrifyingly complex and tragic in their nature. Tragic - in the sense that no matter what he does there will be suffering.
I think that's the grown up thing to do.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
If something is pretty blatantly against the Bill of Rights then I would call it a black-and-white issue. Other issues have more ambiguity.
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
All I'm saying is that it's tiresome hearing people talk as though they have all the answers. And that anyone who disagrees is a total idiot.
I don't think we the public should wash our hands of criticizing foreign policy. For example, I think Carters policy was mostly disastrous. I also think Rumsefelds' resignation was a good thing for the Iraq war. In fact, I'm not even sure this war was a good idea.
But I am disgusted with people that act like everything is blindingly obvious. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe it all is blindingly obvious. I don't know. I just find it tiresome. Then again, I live in NYC, so I put up with a lot of this sort of crap.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
People just state their opinions as if they're blindingly obvious because, rhetorically, it seems like the strongest way of making a point. You can bet safely that no one here actually believes they have all the information needed to make a summary judgment on much of anything having to do with foreign policy (at least I hope not).
But then, OSC is guilty of the same thing, so criticizing him on the same terms is not innapropriate- he has hand-waved a good deal of the Iraq war, and a lot of what Bush has done in the past 8 years, in deference to what OSC believes is a greater victory, (of a kind I don't personally understand or appreciate).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: People just state their opinions as if they're blindingly obvious because, rhetorically, it seems like the strongest way of making a point.
It's also because that's how all of our English teachers taught us to do it.
quote:Originally posted by haihaihaihailovely: People are genetically programmed to be gay (just as people with dwarfism are genetically programmed to be dwarfs).
I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Dwarfism is a physical characteristic. Homosexuality is a behavior. They're not the same at all
Further, I don't see why everyone seems to think that there is nothing influencing homosexuality except genetics. Scientists have said that every other behavior is governed both by genetics and environment (nature and nurture for common terminology). It has been argued to what exact extent each affects said behaviors (to the best of my knowledge, the commonly agreed on figure is 50/50), but almost all agree that all behaviors are influenced by both nature and nurture. Except homosexuality. Why not?
Answer? Political scientists.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by haihaihaihailovely: People are genetically programmed to be gay (just as people with dwarfism are genetically programmed to be dwarfs).
I don't understand how you come to this conclusion. Dwarfism is a physical characteristic. Homosexuality is a behavior. They're not the same at all
Further, I don't see why everyone seems to think that there is nothing influencing homosexuality except genetics. Scientists have said that every other behavior is governed both by genetics and environment (nature and nurture for common terminology). It has been argued to what exact extent each affects said behaviors (to the best of my knowledge, the commonly agreed on figure is 50/50), but almost all agree that all behaviors are influenced by both nature and nurture. Except homosexuality. Why not?
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nod* The point is this: many behaviors to which people are genetically predisposed are illegal or socially unacceptable. This is not in all cases a bad thing; rather, it is perfectly justifiable if the behavior in question does harm.
So the question becomes: is homosexual behavior inherently harmful? If the answer is "yes," then whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component is absolutely irrelevant. If, like me, you believe the answer is "no," then legislating against homosexuality appears to be a form of bigotry.
But the important thing to keep in mind is that THIS is the core question. It's also worth noting that, even to many otherwise intelligent and reasonable people, this is still an open question. I believe quite strongly that history will prove me right on this one, but I am genuinely sorrowful for those people who, far from being drooling neanderthals, simply start from premises that have led them to reluctantly come down on the other -- wrong -- side of the issue.
Tom, I agree with you about the matter of principle here, but with one caveat that does justify deep moral criticism of people who are (even thoughtfully) anti-homosexuality. I don't think these people are bigoted, though.
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We (If we're part of 'everyone') don't. It's not fully understood. We can't jump the gun on scientific findings.
For many of "us" it's not really relevant. What we do know, with very high confidence, is that sexual orientation is a strong part of individual identity, regardless of whether one is homosexual or heterosexual. Attempts to "cure" homosexuality have ranged from fruitless to disasterous.
Given that homosexuals appear to have little present choice about their situation, and given that there doesn't appear to be any significant (if any) harm caused by homosexuality, "we" believe that particular "flavor" of humanity should be able to form the type of relationships that bring joy and fullfillment to their lives and that such relationships should be given every right and respect that heterosexual pairings are given.
Arguments for a genetic cause for homosexuality are useful to the "they can't help it" argument, but I think the "they can't help it" issue is fairly well demonstrated by now, regardless of the extent to which genetics contribute to the situation.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Umm, getting back to the original post, the Freedom of Information Act has not been repealed. And if it had been, that's not something the Bush administration could have done (it requires Congress to act to repeal a law).
It is worth noting that the Obama adminsitration looks likely to continue the first four things on your bullet list, which indicates to me that those are not so outlandish a set of actions as some believe.
And you've counted the war in Iraq twice in your accounting.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Bear in mind that Ender's Game was published almost 25 years ago. People change.
And yet his recent work (ie Ender in Exile) is just as good and brilliant as his previous works. Funny that.
IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Fed Law: Umm, getting back to the original post, the Freedom of Information Act has not been repealed. And if it had been, that's not something the Bush administration could have done (it requires Congress to act to repeal a law).
It is worth noting that the Obama adminsitration looks likely to continue the first four things on your bullet list, which indicates to me that those are not so outlandish a set of actions as some believe.
And you've counted the war in Iraq twice in your accounting.
Actually can you prove that the first 4 things atr officially endorsed and expected to continue under Obama and are not expect to within a reasonable period of time cease? For example, Gitmo is being closed.
IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension. The same reason the former Soviet block sought to establish communist regemes in troubled South American nations applies in this situation. Iraq was a convenient foothold to establish freedom in a part of the world that is brainwashed by an Islamic religious rule. It will take generations to undo the sharia mindset just as it took generations of liberal indoctrination in our schools to produce our current administration. Why aren't the your precious femenists decrying the middle east? How can you trash the "religious right" and turn your backs on Sharia law. You speak of protecting the constitution but would deny those very freedoms to the most oppressed in our world. Democracy is the answer. Truly democratic nations do not wage war on other democratic nations or enslave and indocrinate their people through religion. The point of the Iraq war was to spread freedom and democracy for a future ally in the region. We transformed through war, Japan into a trusted ally and peaceful nation. I would argue the fanatics of that place and time were much more dedicated than the Muslims of today. Their emperor was god.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension.
Good show. Okay liberals, you heard the man: you don't know what's good for ya. Don't bother, it's not something you can comprehend. Just sit back and let these guys do all the work for you.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension. The same reason the former Soviet block sought to establish communist regemes in troubled South American nations applies in this situation. Iraq was a convenient foothold to establish freedom in a part of the world that is brainwashed by an Islamic religious rule. It will take generations to undo the sharia mindset just as it took generations of liberal indoctrination in our schools to produce our current administration. Why aren't the your precious femenists decrying the middle east? How can you trash the "religious right" and turn your backs on Sharia law. You speak of protecting the constitution but would deny those very freedoms to the most oppressed in our world. Democracy is the answer. Truly democratic nations do not wage war on other democratic nations or enslave and indocrinate their people through religion. The point of the Iraq war was to spread freedom and democracy for a future ally in the region. We transformed through war, Japan into a trusted ally and peaceful nation. I would argue the fanatics of that place and time were much more dedicated than the Muslims of today. Their emperor was god.
Umm... Where to start?
Okay, their Emperor is STILL revered as their Celestial Sovereign aka "God" although their concept of God differs from ours, that is why MacArthur in his one act of Sanity insisted he remain in power and accept the Japanese request "we will surrender unconditionally but we wish to keep the Emperor".
Next, Japan is far from peaceful, there is still a very vocal minority that speaks for a large subset of the new generation of far more internationally assertive generation of Japanese students and politicians that increasingly wish to see Japan returned to Great Power status, as of now they spend what? 1% of their GDP on defence? If they spent as much comparitively as the USA, China or the former Sovet Union (upwards of 6%) they would have the worlds most powerful military on a per capita basis a fact that is not lost on them. Right now (or previously) their constitution and US troop presence has been whats keeping them a in a "for now" sense from pursuing their goals but that has been changing, they raised the armed forces to a Ministerial position by recreating the Ministry of Defence. They have been lobbying heavily to have a seat on the expanded Security Council. The restriction placed on their constitution seems to be in the minds of an increasing subset of japanese minds an overreaction.
Next, why is getting rid of Sharia Law bad? Why is it the perogative of the USA to spread "peace, freedom, and democracy" to them? If I recall isolationism has been George Washington's wish and testiment for like the first 2/3's of US policy history? Also what gives the US to "moral" right to violate unilaterally the sacred sovereignty of another nation-state or is might makes right all that matters to you? The USA has a massive amount of blood on its hand from all the facsist states it set up in the America's and abroad so forgive the rest of the world for being wary of the international equivalent of a pederast.
The point of the Iraq war was "they had WMD's, Saddam is bad Oooh Oil" in that order. That you should think that the idea of invading a sovereign if albeit troublesome nation just so you have a base to further spread "democracy" to other nations of the region speaks entirely of hypocracy and moral repugnancy.
Yes many middle east countries have bad governments, but you cannot ever force democracy on a region if the roots of democracy do not already exist, Japan was a semi functional and democratic constitunal monarchy from 1860's to 1920's before the right wingers took control in the wake of a financial crisis (from their overlylarge military budget hmm sounds familiar), if I remember correctly, Jordan, Syria, Israel, I geuss technically Palistine and to a degree Iran and Turkey are all "democracies" without entering in on grey areas like the caucasus.
Leaving Saudi Arabia (US ally and fervent supporter of Sharia law everywhere) as the remaining undemocratic state. Funny that.*
*I do not know of the situations of Oman, Yemen, and lebenon and I am iffy about Syria, but im fairly certain without looking at wikipedia that Jordan is a Constitutional monarchy, and the political system of Iran was shown to be while wierd has checks and balances which is afterall the point of democracy so close enough. pakistan doesnt count.
And anyways whats wrong with Sharia aside from Human rights violations? Many religious christian groups in the states are similar in outlook and beliefs.
IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension.
Your point: The war may have been illegal and falsely premised, yet countries should invade other countries when convenient for political reasons. Liberals can't possibly understand "ends justify the means" governance.
quote:Why aren't the your precious femenists [sic] decrying the middle east?
Uh. . . most of them are. Not "decrying the Middle East" but fighting against the most oppressive extremes of Islam: female circumcision (really just mutilation), different legal treatment of men and women and oppressive rituals designed to denigrate women. I mean, they're about as effective as any charity or special interest group working to change things across the world (read: not very) but that's not a problem with feminism itself.
quote:You speak of protecting the constitution but would deny those very freedoms to the most oppressed in our world. Democracy is the answer.
And what do we do when these new "democracies" follow our example and break the law whenever they damn well please?
Posts: 127 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that the publicised premise of the war in Iraq may have been misleading yet the ultimate goal is beyond liberal comprehension.
Good show. Okay liberals, you heard the man: you don't know what's good for ya. Don't bother, it's not something you can comprehend. Just sit back and let these guys do all the work for you.
*pat pat*
Well that's a load off my mind. I was expending precious mental RAM space trying to wrap my noggin' around that one.
Now I can go hug some trees with all my free time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Why aren't the your precious femenists decrying the middle east? How can you trash the "religious right" and turn your backs on Sharia law. You speak of protecting the constitution but would deny those very freedoms to the most oppressed in our world. Democracy is the answer. Truly democratic nations do not wage war on other democratic nations or enslave and indocrinate their people through religion.
Iraq did not practice Sharia law. It is the Shi'ite majority (suppressed under Hussein) that want Sharia law.
Before the first Gulf War, women were pretty well off in Iraq. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property.
We have not made it better for women.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Iraq did not practice Sharia law. It is the Shi'ite majority (suppressed under Hussein) that want Sharia law.
Before the first Gulf War, women were pretty well off in Iraq. The Iraqi Provisional Constitution (drafted in 1970) formally guaranteed equal rights to women and other laws specifically ensured their right to vote, attend school, run for political office, and own property.
We have not made it better for women.
Iraq did indeed grant equal rights to men and women. But under Saddam Hussein he said he supported women in public and to the press of the world, but the truth is far from his stated position. The actual conditions for women was far more complex than you make it seem. This is a link that you might find useful Women in Post-Saddam IraqPosts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
True. Most things are more complicated than can be expressed in a forum post. Life is generally bad for people under a dictator and when life is bad in general, life is usually worse for women (and the poor).
But, contrary to malanthrop's post,(the simplicity of which did not seem to trouble you) the Ba'athists ended Sharia law in Iraq. Hussein's government was secular. After the first Gulf War, amid anti-Western sentiment, Hussein became or pretended to become a more devout Muslim.
Again, the US has not done the women of Iraq any favours with either invasion.
posted
To be honest, I stopped reading malanthrop's post after the first sentence. The first sentence was more than I could take... I had to take my dog to the vet for what we are hoping is only a pulled muscle. I will read your link after a bit, I just wanted you to know that I do read your posts and ones like malanthrop's I skip over.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
