posted
I try to look on the bright side: at least they are voting. I believe in voting. It kills me that so many people have longed and fought for this right for centuries and then not everyone uses it. Yay for voting! Elections and peaceful transfers of power make me so happy.
Even drunken monkey voting is better than no voting at all. The problem is that not enough people vote - if everyone voted, then there would be more interest in general in what those representatives are doing, and there would be more attention paid and light shone, and if that keeps happening, things get better. The enemy of democracy is apathy. The drunken monkeys can't hold a candle to that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: However, as a personal matter, I don't have much respect for someone who bases their votes on faith.. or anger... or drunken monkeys.
If you don't mind me asking, why is faith such a negative for you?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kath: You really think so? I'd rather people who didn't study and think about their votes simply abstain. People who don't bother about the consequences of their votes are part of the problem. It's why every bond measure always passes, for instance "Oooh, that sounds nice, we could use another park." "Ooo! Bike lanes! It's a bond so we don't even have to pay for it!"
Might as well hook a random number generator to the ballot box.
Hum: Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness, but the word of their god which probably doesn't even exist, and most certainly doesn't exist in the way they perceive him.(*)
(*) There are so many different ways god is perceived, this statement holds true for the majority of people, even if god exists.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I really think so. I do think that California's method of bypassing the legislature has produced an untenable system, but I'm really a fan of the republican system we've got going. Besides, if everyone votes and people pay attention and the three branches work as designed, even if the government is crappy, at least it is the one we deserve. Better a hell of our own making than a place where the trains run on time but the people are powerless.
I even think we should lower to voting age to 16. If people are considered adult enough to drive and pay taxes, they should be able to vote where those taxes are going and on the laws that govern their activities.
People vote for all sorts of crappy reasons. Overwhelmingly, it is for their own pocketbook at the expense of others. I think it is unconsciounable that we have socialized medicine in this country, but the benefits only go to the people who don't pay into the system. Old people only have the power because they vote - if everyone voted, then there wouldn't be any group that could be dismissed off hand because if there is enough to be a "group", there's enough to influence some election or other.
Shine a light and weild the power. Keep the workings of government open and everybody go vote. The results will be better than anything else could possibly come up with.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
EDIT - perhaps some explanation is due. The link isn't in response to anyone in particular. It just seems like it would be useful to the discussion.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kath: The fact that old people are the dominant demographic that votes bugs me too. You can't cut their programs even as they steal from their own grandchildren.
I always thought a great poster against SS would have a crying baby as a hand takes his lollypop away. The legend would read "Social Security: As easy as taking candy from a baby."
But I still don't think the message would get across. They (old people) were stolen from their whole life by their parents and grand parents, it's only fair that they steal from the young, cuz they're the next level in the Great Ponzi Scheme....
posted
I completely agree on that level. I don't want to cast grandma in the street, of course, but it's horrible that the same people who are stridently against socialized medicine for poor children will happily accept medicare when they get old and it's finally their time to have expenses beyond their ability to pay.
I think anybody who is against socialized medicine, especially for minors, should refuse any and all Medicare benefits to be consistent.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Hum: Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness, but the word of their god which probably doesn't even exist, and most certainly doesn't exist in the way they perceive him.(*)
While I think this is true of some, I am doubtful that it is true of all people of faith. I find that most people of faith value what they believe to be correct, just as you do, only they come at the problem from a different perspective. I think they value the same thing you value, only they do do it differently.
Is that really reason for scorn then?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business.
Yeah...this is not a fair, informed, or charitable stereotype. I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences, but it doesn't justify the negative assumptions about people you've never met. That's bigotry.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
kath: 52 to 48 percent of Californians voted to remove rights from gay people. The more religious, and uneducated one was, the more likely they were to vote for prop hate.
I'd say my characterization was spot on.
In any event, it's time to go home. Night everyone.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: "Abstinence" is what I meant - not "abstinence only education". I think teenagers would be wise to abstain.
So do I. However, given that many of them won't, are you in favor of them being taught other methods of contraception?
If it given that many won't, I think it'd be foolish not to teach them alternatives.
quote:Some extreme (fictional, as far as I know) examples that I hope should be easy to dismiss as too overtly religious and without a secular basis, not to mention violating the Bill of Rights in some cases: - Illegal to work on the Sabbath - Illegal to eat pork - Illegal to teach your child that God doesn't exist - Women required to wear a burka
You wouldn't say that if say 67% of the populace (and their representatives) voted for such laws, that they should stand, would you?
I would say the first, second, and fourth should stand if the majority voted for them. The third violates the Constitution because it attempts to prevent people from being atheist.
I wouldn't vote for any of them though, even if my religion said those things were wrong, because I don't really it is wise for the government to be regulating those sorts of things (whether it be for secular or religious reasons.) Even if there was a secular argument for why requiring burkas was a good idea, I don't think that the government's sphere should include regulating appropriate fashion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Even if there was a secular argument for why requiring burkas was a good idea, I don't think that the government's sphere should include regulating appropriate fashion.
But regulating our eating of pork or what days of the week we can work are in the government's sphere?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not really. I wouldn't support regulating eating of pork, whether it be for a religious reason (God is against it) or a secular reason (studies show it is unhealthy). Sort of like how I wouldn't support a law forbidding Big Mac consumption.
As for what days we can work, I don't really think the government should be saying that either, although if they did I wouldn't be that upset.
But in any of those cases, the problem I'd have with the law really has nothing to do with the religiousness of the reason for the law.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest: You are wrong in your bigotry. It is essentially dishonest to perpetuate that kind of prejudice.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting that you would think those laws (1,2,4) should stand, Tresopax. I feel the opposite. However large the majority that would want such things, they seem to me to be imposing religious restrictions on people, and that seems contrary to the 1st amendment. Barring, of course, some secular justification. If pigs were granted rights that cows don't get because pigs were found to be sentient, that'd be justification enough. If ALL meat eating was banned (not just pork) to conserve resources, that'd be justification enough (enough to make the law constitutional from my POV, not necessarily entirely justifying the laws).
I can't think of a secular justification for the Sunday restriction or the burka, though.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems that things are twisted around - laws don't have to be justified by an outside body/litmus test. They have to struck down by a Constitutional justification, not instituted with a secular justification.
It is not "laws not permitted are forbidden." It is "laws not forbidden are permitted." That it is an issue because a large number of the voters have it as part of their religion is not reason enough to strike it down.
Which is as it should be. There shouldn't be some extra-Constitutional review of laws, and the Constitution is fine with closed-on-Sunday laws if enough people vote for it.
There are laws forbidding the slaughter of horses in this country, and there are a whole host of animals that restaurants are forbidden to serve. Non-endangered animals are on that list. Adding pork to that list wouldn't be a fundamental change in these kinds of laws.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness,
Her facts are wrong. She has the right to feel any way she wants, but her blanket bigotry is flat out wrong.
She sounds like someone's great-grandfather railing against black people. It's embarassing, but you try to ignore it because he's so upset and nobody believes him anyway.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because people of faith don't bother so much with justice or minding their own business. Their basis of value isn't freedom or happiness,
Her facts are wrong. She has the right to feel any way she wants, but her blanket bigotry is flat out wrong.
I disagree.
She may be imprecise. Not all people of faith fit her description. But many do. Certainly many (I won't say all or even most) who are against SSM, for example.
When passionate, one tends not to be as precise as when you're not. But passion doesn't necessarily go hand in hand with bigotry.
I'm assuming, of course, that either Pixiest was being imprecise, or has a specific definition of 'people of faith' that would exclude wide swaths of tolerant religious people.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are laws forbidding the slaughter of horses in this country, and there are a whole host of animals that restaurants are forbidden to serve. Non-endangered animals are on that list."
Pork was definitely my weakest example. *grin* Mostly because I CAN imagine a number of secular reasons to ban eating pork. Just like the secular reasons for the bans on eating horses and those other animals.
"the Constitution is fine with closed-on-Sunday laws if enough people vote for it."
I'm not so sure. MY interpretation of the 1st amendment - which of course carries no force whatsoever - is that imposing religious restrictions on the populace is not OK. That there'd have to be a non-religious reason for such laws for the Constitution to be fine with them.
No idea if this one has been tested in the courts, though.
Care to expand on why it's OK for the majority to impose this kind of rule, despite the constitutional bar to establishment of religion?
EDIT: In case it's not clear, I'm NOT talking about some kind of preemptive impediment to passing such laws. I mean such laws could/should be struck down upon judicial review.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Imprecise" is exactly why prejudice and stereotypes are wrong.
"Black people are criminals" is "imprecise" in exactly the same way. How about you substitute some other group and see if you're still all excited about justifying her malificent ignorance.
quote:I'm assuming, of course, that either Pixiest was being imprecise, or has a specific definition of 'people of faith' that would exclude wide swaths of tolerant religious people.
There is no basis for this assumption in anything she's said, and there is certainly no room for it in her statement. She sounds like a crazy prejudiced racist, and all her words bear that out.
Like I said, embarrassing, but you avert your eyes because that's what polite people do when someone exposes their bigotry like that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "Imprecise" is exactly why prejudice and stereotypes are wrong.
"Black people are criminals" is "imprecise" in exactly the same way.
quote:I'm assuming, of course, that either Pixiest was being imprecise, or has a specific definition of 'people of faith' that would exclude wide swaths of tolerant religious people.
There is no basis for this assumption in anything she's said, and there is certainly no room for it in her statement. She sounds like a crazy prejudiced bigot, and all her words bear that out.
Like I said, embarrassing, but you avert your eyes because that's what polite people do when someone exposes their bigotry like that.
Thing you have said also make you sound like an intolerant bigot sometimes, Kat.
Things I have said, I'm sure, have made me sound like an intolerant bigot at times.
I tend to look at everything a person says (or writes), however, as opposed to picking and choosing what they say to back up one view of them. So I don't think that you, Kat, are a bigot. Nor do I think that Pixiest is one. I know that I'm not one.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bigot, insofar as I regularly presume that my opinions are manifestly better than those belonging to anyone who disagrees with me.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:However large the majority that would want such things, they seem to me to be imposing religious restrictions on people, and that seems contrary to the 1st amendment.
The 1st Amendment does not say laws can't be made for religious reasons or that a secular reason is needed for a given law. It just says the government can't recognize/establish one religion as correct or force people to practice a given religion. Or, at least, this is how I think the Supreme Court should interpret it - I don't agree with the Lemon test.
Requiring burkas because Religion X asks people to wear burkas is not equivalent to saying that Religion X is true, and it is not equivalent to forcing people to practice Religion X (unless wearing a burka is considered in Relgion X to be some sort of religious ritual, in which case I could see a case being made).
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
I sincerely DON'T care to accuse anyone of being one. Especially no one in this general area. *gestures broadly*
Just wonder whether a bigot ever self-identifies as one.
And can you avoid being a bigot if you're intolerant of bigots?
Am I a bigot bigot? And should there be another word for that? (A 'large-ot', perhaps? Or a 'smallot'?)
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Exactly. All the people. Not just the non-religous.
Agreed.
That's why the laws should be kept secular.
The problem with this is that a lot of the behaviors laws define as wrong as ALSO defined as wrong by most religions. There is a TON of overlap that is unavoidable.
Also, in a democracy, people get to vote their own conscious, and other people don't get to decide what is and isn't a valid motivation for their beliefs. A lot of times people have developed their own stances on moral issues based on their experiences with religion.
You don't get to decide WHY people vote the way they do any more than THEY have the right to tell you what to believe regarding God.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Even if there was a secular argument for why requiring burkas was a good idea, I don't think that the government's sphere should include regulating appropriate fashion.
The government enforces indecent exposure laws. If the government can dictate that women must cover their breasts, why couldn't they mandate burkas?
ETA: And lots of places have Sunday laws forbidding certain businesses from operating on Sundays or during the hours that people "should be in church."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: "Imprecise" is exactly why prejudice and stereotypes are wrong.
"Black people are criminals" is "imprecise" in exactly the same way. How about you substitute some other group and see if you're still all excited about justifying her malificent ignorance.
Like, for example, gay people can't be good parents?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you think the best way to correct what you think is a misstatement is to invent larger and more viscious lies?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, in addition, that's a twisted, uncharitable, and inaccurate summary of others' positions.
You want to present an egregious example, find something to quote. You know, like that ugly snippet of ignorant prejudice I quoted from Pixiest above.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:that's a twisted, uncharitable, and inaccurate summary of others' positions
Would a fairer statement be "gay people are so much less likely to be good parents that society can't afford to encourage that event?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:that's a twisted, uncharitable, and inaccurate summary of others' positions
Would a fairer statement be "gay people are so much less likely to be good parents that society can't afford to encourage that event?"
Yes, actually - fairer as in a more accurate and truthful summary of some people's opinions. Disagree with that, and that's a fabulous use of free speech.
If you want to take out an animal in the forest, you are more likely to hit it if you aim at the target instead of the sky.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that a more fair summary of racists would be "Black people are so much more likely to be criminals that society can't afford to have them live in my neighborhood."
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would say that a more fair summary of racists would be "Black people are so much more likely to be criminals that society can't afford to have them live in my neighborhood."
Which is, of course, different than what racists actually say. Rather, some say that, and a great many say stuff like the crap Pixiest is saying.
I find it amusing but very human that when confronted with naken, blatant, hateful prejudice like Pixiest's, people try to find ways to excuse or try to pretend that she's saying something different from what she actually said. ---
Pixiest, even overlooking that California is not the human race, and that your pet issue is not the end all and be all of human experience, and that your very framing of the issue in those terms shows a fundamental and willful ignorance, your own numbers don't bear out your prejudiced statements.
Unless it is 100% on all counts, you are wrong to spew such hateful bigotry.
Not mention the snobbish classism displayed there.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I find it amusing but very human that when confronted with naken, blatant, hateful prejudice like Pixiest's, people try to find ways to excuse or try to pretend that she's saying something different from what she actually said.
Forgive me, kat, but if you're going to complain about naked, hateful prejudice, I have some suggestions for prejudices that really hurt people that you could be railing against.
I mean, seriously, "Oh, no! Pixiest is assuming that people who want to prevent her kind from getting married are stupid bigots, and that religious people in general are worse than non-religious people! In this country, those opinions will surely have horrible consequences for everyone!" Is that really where you want to spend your energy?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then find someone on Hatrack advocating using the law to steal the votes of gay people and knock yourself out.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we're agreed that we shouldn't pass laws against letting religious people vote, but should remain free to (optionally) obnoxiously accuse religious people of being dangerously stupid when they vote based on religious edict? And the consequence of this is that some religious people will accuse the original accuser of bigotry?
I'm just trying to boil this down to some sort of shorthand, so we can speed through these arguments in the future. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe in free speech, even when people use it to spread nasty lies and bigotry.
I also believe in pointing it out when people do it.
Do you believe in that spreading viscious lies is an appopriate response to speech you don't like? If not, why are you intent on defending Pixiest?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for one thing, I don't see what she's saying as a particularly vicious lie. Why do you think it's "vicious?" What about it is especially hurtful?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
So tell me, How is my pointing out that religious people are bigots (at least, in a sample of size of several million Californians) worse than religious people using the force of law to deny a basic human right to gay people?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: So tell me, How is my pointing out that religious people are bigots (at least, in a sample of size of several million Californians) worse than religious people using the force of law to deny a basic human right to gay people?
Honestly, I think you hate those people Pixiest, and I don't think you get to claim that you hate those who hate without being a hypocrite.
You are right about proposition 8 and you are correct that *some* of those people are bigots, but becoming a bigot to fight them and painting all of them with the same brush is incorrect as well. In fact, it is much easier to hate and demonize these people, it's much easier to simply dismiss them because of a belief, but it is much harder to embrace them and to understand them.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Honestly, I think you hate those people Pixiest, and I don't think you get to claim that you hate those who hate without being a hypocrite.
Why?
I could be wrong, but I don't think she's saying that them hating is the problem. It's the fact that the reason for their hate is wrong.
Hate is fine if it is given to those who deserve it, IMHO.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Joe believes that all Venusians are stupid and deserve our hate. This is what he has been taught, and he refuses to do change his mind no matter what.
Jane believes that all Venusians are animals and routinely sets out to hunt and kill them. This is what she read on an internet forum, and it makes sense to her.
Mark was beaten up by a Venusian once, and since then he has hated all of them. He talks bad about them to everyone.
Mary had her house destroyed to make way for a Venusian off ramp. The Venusians construction workers just laughed when she tried to stop them. Since then she has assumed that all Venusians were as uncaring as those workers, and as greedy and dangerous as the Venusian government that stole her house.
These are all bigots, since they all hate Venusians.
However, does the circumstances of how they came by their hatred make a difference?
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum: I've defended christians for a long time. Have you read my poorly drawn comic? Most of the main characters are christian.
But I'm pretty damn angry about prop hate and I no longer believe that befriending them will work. (once again, thanks to my, now former, best friend.)
Until the current generation of christians have grown old and died, the rights of gay people will never be safe.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
