posted
I think it's sad that Shear has yet to repost in what is probably one of his or hers first topics. And yet, I'm not suprised. The responses to the original post were so harsh and obnoxious, I dont blame Shear for not staying with the topic. All of you who bashed the kid for having skewed statistics and an overly generalized view of what made Bush win should feel proud. You probably ran off a 17 year old kid looking for answers in a forum that seems to be open minded and intellectually stimulating. Hell, Shears post was articulate and interesting, polite, and while misinformed, obviously looking for others opinions. It was petty to try and deride Shears opinions based on grammar, as well. You turned what could have been an informative discussion into a nasty little pig pile, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. How old are you all? Does it make you feel good to dismiss a 17 year old kids opinions so ruthlessly?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I've been following the forum. I wouldn't call myself misinformed just because I have different views than you though. The reason I haven't been posting is because I don't think this specific thread going anywhere. There have been like 10 to 15 replies on just the camel and eye of a needle anecdote I used when it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I find that infuriating.
If anyone wants to talk about why they think bush won, or his policies on Iraq, abortion, whatever I'd be happy to hear what you have to say. If you want to talk about how I'm a misinformed 17 year old, well then I guess I don't have much to say.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:There have been like 10 to 15 replies on just the camel and eye of a needle anecdote I used when it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I find that infuriating.
Shear, that's fairly typical thread derailing--don't take that personally.
posted
Yeh, i did disappear, but only because i realized i had been trumped, and had somehow missed the post way ahead of me, and i felt dumb.
Alcon, i think waht is great is that you are saying that the only opinions that can decide anything are those that do not come from religion. people are allowed to ban anything they want. if there was a religion out there that said that homosexuality was a must, would it be ok for those people to vote on a bill like that? just wondering
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush won because a large number of people who could vote agreed with something he said, whether it was the war, his morals, his values, his strong stance, his familar name or his policies.
If you're looking for answers, Shear, and not just looking to cause argument, I apologise. Many people are upset at the fact that Bush was re-elected and right after the election the argument here was very fierce- most points have already been driven into the ground. If you do a search for Bush you will probably discover many arguments and many tears over the very issues you brought up, from all viewpoints.
All these threads were found under the search "bush" and "election". There are many more. Please do not post in these- if you are interested in pursuing a single point of one of the topics, start a new thread.
posted
There are still at least two things you don't realize. The first is that very often thread will get derailed or sidetracked and people will start discussing things like the eye of the needle quote, and just because that happens doesn't mean that you did something wrong, it just happens. The second thing is that you originally made bold assertions based on no facts and have since changed your question and seem suprised that people responded to the original one.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
foundling, you need to reread the thread. The statistics were an important part of his thesis. Someone asked where they came from, a perfectly reasonable question. No answer was forthcoming.
The first correction of statistics was this:
quote:If 70 million are evangelical, then they make up 23.9% of the 293,027,571 in the U.S.
Dagonee
The response was this:
quote:Im sorry i was 10% off. You got me, after i listed the source that gave the information. That wasn't the point that i was trying to make. You're playing with semantics.
Had he said accepted the correction and moved on, or said "thanks for the right number," or posted different evidence, or even said nothing about the statistics, no one else would have mentioned them. But he had to cry foul instead.
And he got worse after that. We're not going to treat him differently because he's 17. We treated him as an adult. We asked for backup, we posted different statistics. He responded by attacking us for posting accurate information.
Further, I posted some links and quotations this morning that speak directly to the original topic.
Posters don't get to decide which part of their post people respond to.
Posters shouldn't whine when someone corrects a factual error.
They certainly shouldn't call someone's calculations inaccurate without double-checking their math first.
Posters have no standing to complain because side conversations develop in a thread.
Above all, this forum is open-minded and intellectually stimulating precisely because we expect accuracy, call each other on it when it's not forthcoming, and generally expect people to be able to hold their own in a thread they start about a controversial topic.
posted
Sorry Shear. Didnt mean to imply that your views were misinformed , merely that some of the people who replied to your posts considered your statistics and assumption that the Evangelical Christians won the elction for Bush to be incorrect. And the fact that you are 17 should only effect the way people respond to your posts in that there should be a level of understanding for your youth.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, thank you for that, it really brightened my day. (no sarcasm)
foundling, youth has nothing to do with it, im technically a yout and i don't want to be looked down upon, or held in a different light for that. i'm willing to except the mistakes i have made.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Peter ]
Posts: 283 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I guess I haven't done a good job explaining what I want to discuss because there haven't been posts about what I want to talk about. I'm new to forums so I guess I have to learn how to ask questions better.
When I get responses like:
quote: Bush won because a large number of people who could vote agreed with something he said, whether it was the war, his morals, his values, his strong stance, his familar name or his policies.
Yes i realize you gave me links to other threads about why people said Kerry lost or Bush won etc... but I want to talk about it in this thread because I didn't get to talk about it in those threads. I, me, want to talk about it. Not just read what other people have to say. That's why I started this thread. I have the New York Times to read other's opinions.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, you sound like a high school football coach who got swallowed by a lawer. I thought this forum was open-minded and intellectually stimulating because it is composed of a group of empathetic, intelligent people who are willing to listen to others opinions and give thier own in a kind, civilized manner. That attitude was not in evidence in the replies I read to Shears posts. I'm not saying your evidence and statistics were incorrect. I'm saying the tone of replies was nasty and unnecessarily chastizing.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Shear, you're not the first in this situation. Newcomers are usually encouraged to do a little research among the recent topics before starting posting about a certain matter. Most people don't like giving the same arguments over and over again, whenever a new thread is started, so they'll probably ignore it. Really, what would you do? And also, think about the following: the very arguments you post in the new thread might have already been posted and confirmed / rebuted / discussed in previous threads, so why not look there first? If you start a thread only for the sake of arguing, it's not going to work. If, on the other hand, after reading some of the older threads, you think you have something new to add, well, do it then!
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So do as I suggested, find an interesting topic and create a thread that focuses on a single issue without being a rant.
If you wish to talk about the Evangelical Vote, pause before you do so because if 23% of Americans are Evangelicals do they not have the right to vote, even if you disagree with them or think they're wrong?
One thing to take into consideration might be the issue of felons not being able to vote, or the naturalization policy of America which skews the minority vote which then in turn causes the Evangelical Vote to have more say that perhaps it might do were this not the case.
quote: Alcon, i think waht is great is that you are saying that the only opinions that can decide anything are those that do not come from religion. people are allowed to ban anything they want.
Not anything, national laws. People are using religion as their only reason to try and make a national law. Thats what pisses me off. If they wanna make a ban on gays in their church or other private organizaton, thats fine with me. Becuase I don't have to be part of the organization if I don't want to. An example would be the boyscouts. They can discriminate against gays all they want, and while I think its wrong and protested it by quiting the scouts, I'm not gonna disagree with their right to do it.
But when you make a national law, with your only reason for passing it being that your religion says it wrong, then you're forcing your religion and its particular set of morals on the rest of the country. And that violates the separation of church and state. I have yet to see an argument against gay marrige/civil unions that isn't either religion based or ignorance/predjudice(being "I hate gays, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry!") based.
Therefore, national laws should not be made with a religious principle as their only reason.
And people are not allowed to ban anything they want. What if they wanted to ban your right to live?
quote: if there was a religion out there that said that homosexuality was a must, would it be ok for those people to vote on a bill like that? just wondering
No, then you're forcing a homosexual lifestyle on people who are heterosexual with your religion as the only reason. Its just as bad.
posted
Teshi, that is exactly the kind of reply that I like to talk about. Maybe it's because you're asking me a question, I'm not sure. Do I feel that the Evangelical vote should count? Of course. I think even a nazi should have his vote counted (See David Duke, Louisiana).
As for felons, why should they not have their vote counted? I realize it's part of the punishment of being convicted, but once they're free from encarceration, why not have their votes counted?
By the way, did you know that as of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of white males in the same age group.
How's that for discrimination? By the way, Alcon, that reply was right on. I'm totally with you.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look, foundling and Shear: in a discussion about facts, your facts have to be accurate! It's as simple as that. You can't start basing your posts on erroneous facts, then when they're corrected say "it was a minor error" and "that's not what I was talking about". It IS what you were talking about! And please, don't mistake Dag's quest for accuracy as him being rude, nasty, whatever. When someone's correcting you about use of words or statistics, either prove that what they said is wrong - for example, you meant the phrasing to mean something else, or your statistic was misinterpreted because... - or, if you're wrong, accept the fact and move on.
Also, I've seen this happening elsewhere too: when someone defends an 'old timer' like I just did, newcomers often assume that it's just because I'm more familiar with him so I'd support everything he's saying. To quote from a book I just read: soyas**t! The 'old timer' is probably more experienced, but that doesn't make him 100% right, and people are not going to agree with him just because he has more posts!
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Forget it, I'm not going to encourage this.
You don't just put up statistics and say, "Did you know that you're all racist?" If you're trying to prove a point you incorporate statistics into your arguments, you don't just throw out statistics for the sake of looking smart.
posted
Alcon, you've made a clear case as to what laws should not be based on.
What do you think are acceptable motives for supporting particular laws? Every single rule of law will have a subjective moral supporting principle. Which ones are acceptable and why?
posted
Shear, I just wrote an essay that included this topic so I have all the numbers etc. I agree that it is descrimination, especially since it is not only those incarcerated who are denied of the vore but also those who have paid their debt to the state and are technically free.
The other issue, that of naturalization, concerns immigrants. Many immigrants do not become citizens because it closes the door to their country. Only 35% percent of immigrants become citizens compared with 85% of those in Canada.
Thomas Paine said without a vote, people were like slaves. Although I would not go that far, I agree that the discrimination that exists does disenfrachise a large section of the minority voting body.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Basing law on some basic religous basis assumes that there aren't a few common threads of morality between disparate belief structures. That also assumes that a consensus cannot be achieved about what is needed to maintain a society that is conducive to continuing the democracy. In a utilitarian sense, that would be the only thing a democracy needs to legislate.
posted
But even the idea of democracy is based on a subjective moral principle. So, again, which subjective moral principles are acceptable foundations for laws?
posted
Newfoundlogic, research (http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/blacks_in_prisons.htm) shows that no state has a higher percentage of black people than white people. But, In virtually every state they make up the majority of the jails. Does this seem right to you? Do you honostly beleive that there are more black people in all of those states in poverty than white people, or at least lower class?
(I think my stats might be right this time...)
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No; but I think working on reducing poverty would. America has one of the most unequal economic societies and I think this is big problem.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Alcon, you've made a clear case as to what laws should not be based on.
What do you think are acceptable motives for supporting particular laws? Every single rule of law will have a subjective moral supporting principle. Which ones are acceptable and why?
Dagonee
Ok, things I consider acceptable motives:
a) laws where the general moral idea is shared not just by a particular religion, but by most people, including the non-religious. For example, laws against murder. We can generally agree that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
b) laws that have real, well supported scienctific reasons to behind them. An example would be drug laws. Drugs are proven to be harmful to users and people around them often (drunk driving).
c) Laws with facts and statistics that can be debated. Kind of connects with the scientific reason. But an example, would be outlawing drinking. The statistics are their to argue, and if the arguement is made that there is enough damage done from drinking to merit outlawing it, then if that gets voted in its a good basis for making a law.
Now with these often you can debate at what point we should make the law. At what point is it harmful enough to remove a right to do something? But the motivation for attempting to outlaw it in the first place is that it is shown by statistics or science to do harm to people. And for the first one, its a moral shared not just by one religion, but by a true majority of the country. And not just the voting country. Yes often they are upheld in religion, but they are upheld in many many religions, not just one or two. And they are also held by the non-religious. If its just one or even two religions that support it and then only becuase their religion says something is immoral, then they are forcing their religion on other people. Another example other than gay marrige/civil unions would be the jewish community outlawing the eating of pork.
Edit: And I've probably left some off. But thats all I can think of for now.
Criminals obviously have to go to jail. You cannot say "sorry, you're a minority, you don't have to go." However, the vote should be extended to those who now walk free and more measures should be taken to reduce the rich/poor gap, improve education and opportunity in poor areas.
Putting people in prison may stop crime comitted by that person but will not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent it from happening.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's not quite what I mean. You can keep building jails and putting criminals in them and sure, lots of people are afraid of being incarcerated and so do not commit a crime. But this doesn't reduce crime any more- more measures need to be taken beyond that to reduce poverty etc.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with that Dagonee is that if you say: they committed a felony, let's throw them in jail. A lot of the time you're going to be wrong in convicting them. Also as you throw more people in jail you're going to exacerbate the situation of discrimination against black people because, obviously, they are way more likely to go to jail than white people ( Statistics )
The death penalty is the epitome of this. Black people are much more liekly to be put to death than white people, at the same time if a white person is accused of killing a black person they have a much lower chance of being put to death.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Shear you need a "for the same crime" in there somewhere .
Black people are, indeed, according to statistics, more likely to be in jail for a longer time than those who are white who have comitted the same crime.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes often they are upheld in religion, but they are upheld in many many religions, not just one or two. And they are also held by the non-religious.
Gay marriage can easily be described in this way. Many religions sanction homosexuality, and I know several non-religious people who oppose legal gay marriage.
quote:A lot of the time you're going to be wrong in convicting them.
It depends on what you mean by "a lot."
The vast, vast, vast majority of indicted people actually committed the crime they are accused of. It's not even close - we're talking 95% plus.
Far more guilty go free than innocent get locked up. This is as it should be, and we should be working to reduce further the number of innocents wrongly convicted.
But indicting the whole system is not fair. The poorest people are the ones most victimized by crime. Most police officers, prosecutors, and judges are simply trying to stem an unrelenting tide of crime.
I'm not saying there aren't improvements to be made. But the number of innocent people in jail is a tiny percentage.
quote:I also know several religious people who are pro-gay marriage.
If by "pro-gay marriage" you mean equal civil marriage rights for any two currently unmarried, consenting adults not related by blood, then I'm one of them.
My point was that Alcon's criteria do not unassailably prevent blocking legal gay marriage.
a) if it is supported by wide reaching morals and the thing being outlawed harms people. Example murder, by definition harms someone(those this is supported by more than just wide reaching morals, becuase again, it by definition harms someone).
b) if it is supported by wide reaching morals and its a law being passed that will help people in a way that does far far more good than harm. I can't think of an example of this off of the top of my head.
Both of these cases are for if it is only supported by wide reaching morals.
Gay marrige harms no one. And the people who are opposed to gay marriges that are not religious often fall under the ignorance/predjudice bit.
Dag the none-religious people you know who are opposed to it, what were their reasons for being opposed?
And on a similar note I know a pair of lesbians currently living together with a son who are wonderful people. They are also devote catholics.
quote:Dagonee, do you believe in the saying: the ends justify the means?
I don't believe that the ends always justify the means, but I do believe that the ends are necessary variables in the calculus that determines the morality or immorality of a given action.
quote: Another example other than gay marriage/civil unions would be the Jewish community outlawing the eating of pork.
*sigh* I will say it again. Jewish law DOES NOT forbid non-Jews from eating pork. Therefore this is NOT a correct -- or useful -- analogy.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have basketball practice (yes on sunday) and must go. I'll be back later. Hope we can finish our conversation!
Posts: 43 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gay marrige harms no one. And the people who are opposed to gay marriges that are not religious often fall under the ignorance/predjudice bit.
Yes, but in the current state of the law, gay couples are not prohibited from living together as a monogamous, dedicated couple. They are denied benefits that other monogamous, dedicated couples can obtain. I favor extending these rights to homosexual couples because they can be conveyed to them easily, cheaply, and without hindering the societal goals of marriage laws, and because society would obtain some benefits from allowing it.
quote:Dag the none-religious people you know who are opposed to it, what were their reasons for being opposed?
Most of them are using cost-benefit analyses, mainly based on the realities of reproduction.
quote: *sigh* I will say it again. Jewish law DOES NOT forbid non-Jews from eating pork. Therefore this is NOT a correct -- or useful -- analogy.
Oops, sorry I'd always heard that pork wasn't kosher... which translated into forbidding from eating it. So what does kosher do then? *boggle* And is pork Kosher? (yea its a derailment but I'm curious now)
But just becuase that particular analogy is wrong, doesn't mean the general idea translated is. Take any religion, a rule it has thats just that religion's, and insert it in its place.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I'd always heard that pork wasn't kosher... which translated into forbidding from eating it. So what does kosher do then? *boggle* And is pork Kosher? (yea its a derailment but I'm curious now)
