Abortion

[ImitationSanen]

This is very non controversial and relates to the topic!
As far as abortion, other than in cases of incest and danger to the mother, I believe it is a license to have unprotected sex, since kids believe there is little or no permanent damage done (I can just get an abortion). That was fine until 1979 when the AIDs virus came into play. Sex is a dangerous thing anymore. I can't say how i feel either way, accept messing with the natural order of things never seems to work right for us.

The truth is, in the United States you are what you make yourself. If you choose to be a moron by joining a gang or doing drugs you do so on your own merit as a human being. On the same token, if you bust your ass in school, dont smoke crack, and go to work everyday you will be successful. All this independant of your race.

The true reason race is such an issue in the United States is, the democratic party and in turn the news media, relies on it as a sabre to rattle at any other party everytime they begin to gain a majority. If they are supposedly for the equal treatment of everyone, why do they further programs which make a point of throwing our cultural differences in each others faces? Its the whole lets leave the past behind us and realize that we all live in the same country and are one people.

I can honestly tell you, when I look at a person, I dont see their race, their sex, or religion. I see their merits, what you do is who you are, race is irrelevant.

. I think we should once and for all just celebrate the unity of one people under one flag instead of constantly trying to throw our differences in each others faces. On the same token our race, gender or religion should never be used as an excuse as to why we fail, its an insult to everyone of that race or religion that did the right thing to succeed.

Don't worry, once Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are shown for the racial hatemongers they are for stirring the pot and trying to make every issue a race issue, and on the same token all of the people who populate the KKK will also die out. Leaving the world free of the generalizations of the past, to decide its own future. I believe the most of the percieved racial discrimination will disappear in favor of being a united people. I am a white male raised with southern values, no one should be generalized by what color they are or where they are from. At least thats what I hope my children will know when they grow up

[complich8]

I'm going to reply to a lot of this thread, partly as a commentary to the things said, partly as a direct response. This may take a while ... but bear with me here. This'll probably take the crown "longest legitimate post on gotwoot, ever" [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Originally posted by: milfhunter
If this country was a democracy, then we'd all be caucasian orthodox methodists and at the mercy of southerners with below average IQs. Read some books.
EDIT: If the United States of America was a democracy, then we'd all be at the mercy of illiterate southerners with severely below average IQs.

What's ok with this? Well, the central point makes sense, but Ben Franklin said it much better: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

What's wrong with this?
(1) How would we all be caucasian? Would this imply that the honkeys rose up en masse to expel the people who made them breakfast every day, and farmed their fields? Not so much -- the prevalent opinion of white people in the last 150 or so years is pretty much the prevalent opinion of everyone else as well: civil rights are good, diversity isn't the devil, and if I can get someone else to clean my house for a nominal fee, why not? You're suggesting that nearly every white person is the "white devil" parading around in a KKK outfit and lynching everyone who isn't white. This is quite not the case.
(2) We're a representative democracy, not a pure democracy. Representative democracies force their representatives to bear in mind the principles on which the country was founded, and think about the repercussions of their decisions in ways that direct democracies don't require. This is an attempt to harness the less transient essence of the people, rather than the more transient opinion of the people. Again, this is what good old Bennie was saying back in 1753.
(3) By definition of "average", in a normal distribution (as intelligence follows), no more than half of the people in the country should be there. If they are, then either the metric is mis-tuned and needs to be adjusted, or the testing is flawed, or the distribution is abnormal and needs to be rethought. In the case of IQ, intelligence very closely follows a normal distribution, thus there's no possibility of tyrrany exclusively by people on one side of it or the other. Indeed, you'd need confluence of opinions between both sides of the mean line in order to rule -- which is what we have, thanks in no small part to the presence of a century of marketing research yielding a very ... let's call it Machiavellian understanding of popular opinion.
(4) Orthodox Methodists. Let's stop for a minute to appreciate the stunning beauty of this incredible oxymoron. Let it sink in. Yes, you've just managed to create a link between Methodism (a practice that claims to have come into existence less than 200 years ago, and has its roots in the reformation started by Martin Luther in the 1500's) and the practice of Orthodoxy (meaning traditionalist practices in religion). Orthodoxy can NOT be applied to methodists, I'm sorry.
(5). Illiteracy isn't just for southerners anymore. In fact, 3/4 of college students lack functional literacy. When was the last time you got off your ass and read a work of great classic fiction, or an essay on something with more depth than the latest news?

Originally posted by Masamuneehs
When I was speaking of 'democratic values', i could see how people might reject that statement. My idea of what values our government stands for are not the same as anyone elses. A value, among other things, is worth in importance to the possessor of that value. It can also be a principle, standard, or quality that one considers desirable. I don't believe 'democratic values' under those definitions are STRICTLY declared in any law or document. Otherwise it would be against the law for me to disagree with you

What's right?
(1) well, we've got ground rules for what "values" are, and a general hand-wavey approach to what you mean by "democratic values".
What's wrong?
(1) You're not talking about democratic values. You mean to say "liberty" and "those who value liberty". Democracy is tyranny, as Ben said (quoted above).

Originally posted by el_boss
Isn't this how it is now? I mean the fact that it's the state elections that count and not the total votes of the entire population. I agree that America isn't really a democracy. Since there is basically only two parties to vote for and the "losing" side doesn't get represented.

No, no, that's the very ESSENCE of democracy. We've managed to avoid it for a long time, because popular opinion has been overwhelmingly popular opinion, in most cases (while it could be argued that in fact Bush's 2000 election was anti-democratic because he lost the popular vote, but the electoral college is set up as an attempt to balance representation based on population with the voice of the minority). But I digress ... the US was never meant to be a democracy, it was meant to be a federalist republic. We've lost the meaning of both that federalism and that idea of a republic of late, though -- federalism because our national government has gained too much power and exerts too much influence over what should ultimately remain state affairs, and the republic because of the raw perversion of what "republican" has come to mean.

Originally posted by: milfhunter
I don't think so either. I'd go further by stating the obvious that a pure Republic never existed in USA.

In fact, the US is an exercise in hybridity. We're a democratic republic, practising socialistic capitalism (ie: capitalism with a welfare system), and US public opinion has historically been socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And none of this is in conflict, per se. The conflicts between the "left" and the "right" are largely artificial, created as tools to manipulate public opinion for one side's interests or another.

Originally posted by: God#2
Dam, You beat me to it. Oh well. Anyway, democracy is never good nowadays because everybody is just so dumb. And Republics dont work either, I mean look at our country! (U.S.A)

What? People now are as smart as they've ever been. Smarter, even. Less self-reliant, lazier, and more easily manipulated. But still smarter, in a certain sense. And the US is either both or neither democratic and/nor republican.

Originally posted by el_boss
I think everyone knows that there are more parties than reblicans and democrats in america. But the fact remains that these two parties get like 99% of the votes or something like that.

This is a direct result of cognitive laziness. You find a party you like. You check their box. Simple.

Originally posted by mage
Aborting all the black babies in the country would lower crime rates. Bill Bennet said so.

There's always someone to demonize. Kill all the blacks off, and next thing you know, it'll be those damned hispanics. Kill them off, and it'll be the asians. Kill them off, it'll be the irish. Kill them, italians. Then germans. Then ... whatever.

Originally posted by Ero-fan
And that any system where you elect representatives is a republic, since a true democracy (where everyone votes on every issue) is just about impossible in today's world.

Actually, with the advent of ubiquitous connecting technology, a direct democracy is more of a realistic possibility than it's ever been (and the results of it are predictable. See also: TRL). But what we have isn't necessarily a "republic" per se, it's a hybrid between a republic and a representative democracy. A republic doesn't necessarily have to follow the whims of popular opinion, so long as it recognizes that power ultimately comes from the people.

Anyway, it doesn't matter too much if the supreme court decides to overturn roe vs. wade. If they do, and you read the law, then each individual state sets their own abortion laws. Even though that seems stupid, it could happen.

In the case of state law, that's true. Theres no constitutional basis for a sane federal government to be concerning itself with reproductive issues, except to explicitly guarantee or deny them to the people as a whole. What's a but more worrisome is if congress decides that abortion should be illegal, and aims for a constitutional amendment to the effect. Not that that'd ever get ratified (one can hope).

Of course, even in the case of a national ban on abortion, there's an abortion-friendly neighbor to our north. Are they going to give every woman a pregnancy test at the border before letting her enter Canada? I doubt it.

Originally posted by KoKo37erm, if any kinds of people aborted that much, there would probably be lower crime rates because lower amounts of people.

Let's think of this for a second. The population is growing. Abortion is legal. Crime rates are dropping. While it follows that if the population were being aborted at a rate that would actually impact net population growth, there would be less crime, it would only reduce the actual number of crimes, not the per-capita crime rate necessarily.

Originally posted by God#2
Guess why black are in poverty and have to resort to crime, um i dont know, how about WHITE PPLZ?????

If you'd care to make a cogent argument in this direction, I'd suggest reading the book "Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria" by Beverly Daniel Tatum. It puts forth a quite excellent operant definition of racism (as systematic advantage, as opposed to prejudice). Ultimately, however, blame for the prevalence of any race overrepresented in poverty can't be heaped exclusively on one group -- many black people have "made it" without the help of whites, and a big chunk of what dooms so many blacks to the same poverty-ridden lives their parents led is in fact indigenous to black adolescent culture (for instance, the rejection of education as a "white" value).

Originally posted by mage
There is no such thing as racism. They are in poverty and have to steal to survive because they are inferior.

You should also read that book I recommended to God#2 above.

Originally posted by The Heretic Azazel
Why are these blacks impoverished? i don't know, how about... getting off their lazy asses and forgoing welfare for a real job.

With no marketable skills and a self-defeating value system? I think & not so much. Recommendation number three for the book above.

Originally posted by ChaosKiddo
the topic has nothing to do with blacks or whites or jobs!

Directly, no. Tangentially, yes. But ...

Originally posted by masamuneehsi think it goes without saying that basing any argument for/against abortion on racist or cultural grounds is a pretty poor argument.

Right on.

Getting back on topic, ImitationSanen says some interesting things:

Originally posted by ImitationSanenThe truth is, in the United States you are what you make yourself. If you choose to be a moron by joining a gang or doing drugs you do so on your own merit as a human being. On the same token, if you bust your ass in school, dont smoke crack, and go to work everyday you will be successful. All this independant of your race.

Yet another recommendation for Tatum's book. But to summarize the important part ... as someone living in a racist (and sexist, and ageist, and about a dozen other -ists) society, you get advantages for the things you conform to the socially accepted image of "good" in. A light skinned black woman has an easier time finding a nice apartment than a dark-skinned one, an attractive, able-bodied person has more luck finding a good job than an ugly, sickly one. Even if such factors have no logical bearing on the person's capacity to perform the job.

It's not a question of whether success is possible. It's a question of to what degree success is possible.

If they are supposedly for the equal treatment of everyone, why do they further programs which make a point of throwing our cultural differences in each others faces?

and

I can honestly tell you, when I look at a person, I dont see their race, their sex, or religion. I see their merits, what you do is who you are, race is irrelevant.

In fact, this ties back to something I said about the top of this post, which is that popular opinion is socially liberal and fiscally conservative: Democrats dont see how to be fiscally conservative, Republicans dont see how to be socially liberal (and Bush doesnt see how to be either). Beyond that, Id say that those programs are essential. Being colorblind in a racist (in Tatums definition) society means in fact exploiting the fact that youre in the advantaged class. If you werent, you couldnt afford the luxury of pretending that everyone is on a level playing field.

I think we should once and for all just celebrate the unity of one people under one flag instead of constantly trying to throw our differences in each others faces. On the same token our race, gender or religion should never be used as an excuse as to why we fail, its an insult to everyone of that race or religion that did the right thing to succeed.

I partially agree. We need to celebrate our unity as a people, as Americans, as Humans. At the same time, we must fight to preserve the cultural distinctness that makes us all different. Americas great strength isnt uniformity, its heterogeneity. The fact that I am different than you, and you are different than my Latino neighbors or my Black friends or my Middle-eastern coworkers is a wonderful thing. If we were all the same, we wouldnt have this rich cultural diversity to explore. As I said before, America is an exercise in hybridity. And, in fact, even this community is an exercise in the same: everyone here is here because of our explorations of the entertainment of a different culture. Would anime be appealing if it were all Love Hina?

I am a white male raised with southern values, no one should be generalized by what color they are or where they are from.

sweet vindication. You are, in fact, the majority. You can afford colorblindness. Ask your Black friends (you _do_ have a couple, right?) about it sometime, about what they think of the race situation in this country. I agree that prejudice needs to be done away with, but pretending that it isnt there isnt going to make it happen. Then, neither is prying at it like Farrakhan and his ilk, or in fact anyone pushing hate on either side. Understanding and awareness are the keys.

But what did that have to do with the topic? Oh, this:

As far as abortion, other than in cases of incest and danger to the mother, I believe it is a license to have unprotected sex, since kids believe there is little or no permanent damage done (I can just get an abortion). That was fine until 1979 when the AIDs virus came into play. Sex is a dangerous thing anymore. I can't say how i feel either way, accept messing with the natural order of things never seems to work right for us.

Indeed. That's the danger of abortion, and the big objectionable side: that people will use abortion as a contraceptive. I think that's a terrible thing. Regardless of HIV or other STDs, people need to learn personal responsibility. But how can you mandate that in a political climate like this, where the most corrupt, horrible people manage to both get and retain political office, mocking the very term "personal responsibility"?

In fact, in as marketing-laden a world as we live in, there are researchers questioning the impact of such things on our very capacity for free will and rational thought. Is personal responsibility a contradiction in an age where "God is in the TV"?

Such questions lie at the core of the abortion debate. Can we modulate our own behavior in the face of what amounts to brainwashing, equating every product with sexuality and ordering us to seek both? If not, then all hope for restricting the use of abortion as a birth control agent is just misguided.

[ImitationSanen]

"Ask your Black friends (you _do_ have a couple, right?) "

Just when I thought you could bring an intelligent opinion based on your interpretation of the facts of society, you throw in that bullshit comment.

Personal responsibility goes back to the last discussion. Its your responsbility not to make ignorant comments that are based not on fact (unless you happen to know me personally, which unless your floating out in the Persian Gulf at the moment I doubt you do). As a matter of fact most of the men in my unit are from miami and are cuban and hispanic, we also have a black fitness instructor that goes with our unit. Each of these men worked their way here, the beauty of the military is it is blind to color, and the system works well. We all know we are here because we earned it, not because of some oddball social program thats supposed to equal the playing field by discriminating against certain minorities and the majority.As soon as people stop making race and class inequality an excuse and start working through it, equality can be achieved. You ask any black, asian, arabic, european man on this ship or any of the ships next to it, they all got here because of their choices and actions. Its your responsibility to stop that stereotyping of southerners as racists, as it is my duty to not be racist despite the stereotype that all southerns are racist anyway so I might aswell be.

The beauty of a republic is we can have differences of opinion, I respect that, I fight for it, and I watch men die for it. Before you make a comment like the one above, carefully consider how much of an insult it could be to the person your directing it to.

Edit: This came to me a few minutes later
Oh and southerners are not the majority in the country, the population centers are in the North and the west. Secondly, almost half of the southern states are comprised of African Americans, most with the same values as I. I went to school with about an even mix of white and black kids, and you know? They were all just as color blind as I was. There was no "oh dont play with the black kids" crap. We were just kids and adults, picnicing, going to the movies. Thats not the exception either, thats more or less how it is in the south. Because of the events in the past, and the suffering on both sides. The blacks in slavery (Although the true blame lies in the Africans who sold the slaves to the whites when they sailed into Africa,) The whites in the 40 years of starvation after the north abolished slavery in the south, ruining their economy, with the major cities in ruins,but kept the slaves in the north. Lets debate again, just don't throw insults at people you don't know. That would be like me saying "I owned your granddad, then I hung him from a tree cause he smelled bad" If you were black and had family that were slaves 150 years ago that would enrage you correct? How do you think I feel when despite how i've lived my whole life I have to deal with people that automatically assume I am a racist genocidal maniac because I am from a certain portion of the map, without taking into account me as the individual?

[masamuneehs]

Imitation. You have some good points, and you also have some back-up for those points that very few of us have: experience.
Just keep in mind, there are lots of different experiences, lots of exceptions to the rules/beliefs one's experiences has taught.

However, once again this is turning into an argument about race. I understand that Complich8 sorta called you out with that comment, but its a topic for a whole different day, an entirely different place. And, I am not that much of a troublemaker as to make any thread with the word "Race/Racism" in it. I simply doubt the forum's ability to handle itself in such an arena.

Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
As far as abortion, other than in cases of incest and danger to the mother, I believe it is a license to have unprotected sex, since kids believe there is little or no permanent damage done (I can just get an abortion). That was fine until 1979 when the AIDs virus came into play. Sex is a dangerous thing anymore. I can't say how i feel either way, accept messing with the natural order of things never seems to work right for us.

Freedoms are not licenses to abuse freedoms. Some people will abuse them, others will not. However, you do have a point; If people realize there is a safety net below them, they will tend to play on the roof-tops more often. People who have sex irresponsibly, without protection, are probably stupid/reckless enough to do it in a world without abortion. And, as knowing someone who had an abortion at quite a young age, it really isn't just "I can always get an abortion." That girl damn near had that baby when she was 15. She won't ever forget it, and I doubt she'll ever take unprotected sex for granted again.

I would like to believe that even in a world without STDs, where abortion was allowed, people would not just go around recklessly fucking with no rubber. There have been several studies that show that there is damning psychological damage done to a majority of women who have an abortion. And while some men might shrug it off, "it didn't effect me", then they are those who abuse such freedoms and rights. When I'm about to have sex, even if i think, even if i know the girl is clean of STDs, I wear a condom because there is no way I would ever trade MY unborn child's life for a few extra minutes of raw-dog sex. Anyone who would make that trade is an abomination in my eyes.

[KitKat]

Well now, I come back after being away for a bit and there is all sorts of interesting discussion happening. I suppose I'll say a bit on this issue.

Originally posted by: Honoko
and if i think about it, i don't know a single pro-life individual out there who isn't the slightest bit religious.

Well, and rightly so. Although we've been discussing many of the peripheral issues, the core of this debate depends directly on the definition of what it means to be human. If you are of the opinion that humans are nothing more than highly evolved animals, what difference is one more or one less? People in this debate have referred to children as pets and as parasites. This makes sense when one uses intelligence as the defining characteristic of what it means to be human. Coming from this view, there is no compelling reason to disallow abortion.

However, some people hold to a different worldview. Most religions list the defining characteristic of humanity not as our ability to use tools or create artwork or engage in philosophical discussion, but as a spiritual quality. In this view, people are unique and valued because they are not just physical creatures but spiritual creatures. Personally, I fall on this side of the fence. I believe that each person, no matter how they were conceived, is designed by God and becomes a human at the moment of conception, and therefore has unmeasurable value.

As long as these opposing worldviews exist, there will never be a resolution of the abortion debate. We live in a society where morals and ethics are ruled by popular opinion. Things which were viewed as unacceptable a few hundred years ago are now embraced and valued. Because we live in a democracy (or partial democracy as has been pointed out) issues like this will always be measured on a sliding scale which is dependant upon who can rally the most support for their side and shout with the loudest voice. Governments aren't so much concerned with 'what is right' as with 'what do our people want' or 'what is in our best self-interest so that we can keep governing'. Right and wrong become merely social constructs and are continually subject to change. But I digress. This is inching over into tangent land. I suspect that my post will be torn apart soon enough, so perhaps I shall leave it here.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: complich8

Originally posted by Ero-fan
And that any system where you elect representatives is a republic, since a true democracy (where everyone votes on every issue) is just about impossible in today's world.

Actually, with the advent of ubiquitous connecting technology, a direct democracy is more of a realistic possibility than it's ever been (and the results of it are predictable. See also: TRL). But what we have isn't necessarily a "republic" per se, it's a hybrid between a republic and a representative democracy. A republic doesn't necessarily have to follow the whims of popular opinion, so long as it recognizes that power ultimately comes from the people.

Definitions of a republic:

form of government based on a constitution, in which decisions are made by elected or appointed officials in a democratic manner.
also
A form of government where ultimate political power is theoretically vested in the people but in which popular control is exercised only intermittently and indirectly through the popular election of government officials or delegates to a legislative assembly instead of directly through the people.

Which is exactly what we have. A representative democracy is a republic, just a fun way of saying it. And we would never be able to vote every single day on every single decision that congress ever makes. Unless you can make sure everyone would have a chance to vote, which you couldn't. Would you vote every day on town, county, state, and federal issues? It'd be a logistical nightmare.

Anyways, back on topic: It seems that justice that is being drilled to see if he will be appointed to the supreme court (I forget his name) is really being drilled to find out his stance on abortion. Anyone have any thoughts on what will happen to roe v wade if he gets appointed?
Edit: Alito was his name, damnit!

[Assertn]

Originally posted by: God#2
Really? Which thread? Well, its not so much sex, but more the fact tat she could just abort a child everytime the lady gets pregnant which doesnt just seem right (Im gonna have to think up a good reason later).

Terra's one-night-stand thread.

And Im not against sex. I go in the Onepiece/Bleach Babes thread.[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif[/img]

Yiiiiiikes [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-shocked.gif[/img]

[complich8]

Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
Just when I thought you could bring an intelligent opinion based on your interpretation of the facts of society, you throw in that bullshit comment.

Point conceded, that was probably a bit far.

Its your responsbility not to make ignorant comments that are based not on fact (unless you happen to know me personally, which unless your floating out in the Persian Gulf at the moment I doubt you do).

Nah, it's not. It's just my responsibility to own up to it when I do. We all ultimately act within the realm of our own ignorance, sometimes it's a matter of boldly marching through like an asshole or allowing fears of being perceived as one paralyze us. I'm not a fan of paralysis.

As a matter of fact most of the men in my unit are from miami and are cuban and hispanic, we also have a black fitness instructor that goes with our unit. Each of these men worked their way here, the beauty of the military is it is blind to color, and the system works well. We all know we are here because we earned it, not because of some oddball social program thats supposed to equal the playing field by discriminating against certain minorities and the majority.As soon as people stop making race and class inequality an excuse and start working through it, equality can be achieved. You ask any black, asian, arabic, european man on this ship or any of the ships next to it, they all got here because of their choices and actions.

The military is an excellent example of people overcoming racism, finding common ground in other things (like military culture and shared experiences). You're right, there. Within military culture, you're inside of a microcosm in which race isn't permitted to exist. Not so on the outside.

I'll still hold you to the challenge to ask your shipmates about their opinions on race. I doubt, given the ability to be completely candid (which they probably don't have within the scope of military service), that they honestly feel that "colorblindness" outside of the welcoming arms of the armed forces.

Its your responsibility to stop that stereotyping of southerners as racists, as it is my duty to not be racist despite the stereotype that all southerns are racist anyway so I might aswell be.

This is something of a flex in the meaning of the term "racism" as I'm using it. Once again I'm falling back to Tatum's definition: racism is a system of advantage. What you're terming racism is more likely prejudice, and you're right, it's also something we need to be aware of and fight.

I went to school with about an even mix of white and black kids, and you know? They were all just as color blind as I was. There was no "oh dont play with the black kids" crap. We were just kids and adults, picnicing, going to the movies.

Exposure tends to make those differences dissolve. As does shared culture. Again, both the military and your experiences reflect that. But at the same time, consider the case of Atlanta. While poorer people share schools and neighborhoods and lives with no regard for race, the upper class segregates sharply, with wealthy blacks and wealthy whites living in their own, segregated neighborhoods.

The blacks in slavery (Although the true blame lies in the Africans who sold the slaves to the whites when they sailed into Africa,) The whites in the 40 years of starvation after the north abolished slavery in the south, ruining their economy, with the major cities in ruins,but kept the slaves in the north.

Yikes. What's wrong with this?
(1) I seem to remember it being the Dutch to introduce slavery to the new world. And coining the term "niggers" as well.
(2) Africa wasn't, and isn't, some homogeneous place. It's a continent, not a country. It wasn't "black people selling other black people into slavery". It was "Zulu selling Mandingos" or "Hutu selling Tutsi".
(3) The north didn't seem to have a whole lot of slavery at the end of the civil war, according to any account I've heard. Got a source on your assertion?
(4) it's not like all the black people just suddenly dried up when slavery was abolished. Many of them still needed jobs and food. And it's not like there was a shortage of arable land, nor was there a shortage of labor to till it. But yeah, in a war people die. Property is destroyed. Things are overturned. Don't forget who seceeded from whom before you start blaming the north for the 150-year-old problems of the south. More to the point, do you think it would have been better to leave the status quo? If you think that the outcome was ultimately negative, I'd suggest you consider it from the point of view of the ~3.5 million people who, at the time, were not legally people at all. Otherwise, maybe this is a case where the past should be left comfortably in the past.

Originally posted by: Ero-fan
Which is exactly what we have. A representative democracy is a republic, just a fun way of saying it. And we would never be able to vote every single day on every single decision that congress ever makes. Unless you can make sure everyone would have a chance to vote, which you couldn't. Would you vote every day on town, county, state, and federal issues? It'd be a logistical nightmare.

I'll concede the point about the republic, I was somewhat operating on a false dichotomy. They have more in common than not, but I wouldn't go so far as to say they're interchangeable necessarily... that is, not all republics are democratic, and not all democracies need be republics.

As for direct democracies... As it is, many people don't vote (2004 saw 55% voter turnout, the highest it'd been since 1968). If everyone were given cell phones and the ability to text-message their vote to a handy number, say with voting issues texted out to everyone whenever they come up, with say a 48 hour window to get your vote in, automatic tabulation, etc ... it'd certainly be attainable. I don't think direct democracy is out of reach, given some sane planning and deployment (not that that's something the government is known for). But at the same time I think that such a direct democracy is generally a bad idea, because popular opinion are too easily manipulated.

Anyways, back on topic: It seems that justice that is being drilled to see if he will be appointed to the supreme court (I forget his name) is really being drilled to find out his stance on abortion. Anyone have any thoughts on what will happen to roe v wade if he gets appointed?

I don't think the balance will shift that far. Alito won't be the "middle seat" justice that O'Connor was. But I think his record is that of a judicial conservative, and I think that another of the justices will probably slide over on the spectrum. It seems to me like the supreme court values balance, and someone will subtly shift their opinion to maintain it, given a perceived shift in the center of gravity. I don't think that the court will be so far swayed that it'll enable it to "legislate from the bench" as they say.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: complich8
As for direct democracies... As it is, many people don't vote (2004 saw 55% voter turnout, the highest it'd been since 1968). If everyone were given cell phones and the ability to text-message their vote to a handy number, say with voting issues texted out to everyone whenever they come up, with say a 48 hour window to get your vote in, automatic tabulation, etc ... it'd certainly be attainable. I don't think direct democracy is out of reach, given some sane planning and deployment (not that that's something the government is known for). But at the same time I think that such a direct democracy is generally a bad idea, because popular opinion are too easily manipulated.

I still say it would be a pain in the ass. 48 hours would be too long for town, county, and state decisions. I mean, if you look at all the decsions a state makes in 48 hours (contracts, zoning/land rights, tax laws, fundings, budgets, etc.) you'd have a text message that would take days to read. Just getting rid of the position of mayor of a small town would be almost impossible, considering that the decisions/bills/contracts they sign for the town would have to be voted on. Christ, in high school I was in charge of logistics one year for rotc, and that was a nightmare; I can't imagine what it would be like if all of my classmates (a couple of hundred) had to vote on each and every agreement I made to spend or make us money. Besides, would you want uninformed people voting on things like whether to allow this or that piece of land to be zoned for residential, or commercial property? God, even thinking about what the mayor and town council in my little area do would be more than people can handle.
Well, hopefully he doesn't swing it enough to overturn roe v wade, but if he does, like I said before, it'll be left to the states. God help the women in the south.

[darkmetal505]

its amazing how this thread is proving David Brin's hypothesis from "The Dogma of Otherness".

Everyone does, says, eats, etc. what they want. To bad its not a perfect world.

[ImitationSanen]

[quote]
Originally posted by: complich8

Originally posted by: ImitationSanen
Just when I thought you could bring an intelligent opinion based on your interpretation of the facts of society, you throw in that bullshit comment.

Originally posted by: complich8 -Point conceded, that was probably a bit far.

Thanks,
Many a conflict could have been resolved if one side could understand the others feelings.

Im done talking about all of this since it is off topic and I apologize for the deviation. I guess I felt the same way Complich8 talks about here..

"Nah, it's not. It's just my responsibility to own up to it when I do. We all ultimately act within the realm of our own ignorance, sometimes it's a matter of boldly marching through like an asshole or allowing fears of being perceived as one paralyze us. I'm not a fan of paralysis"'

I guess thats how I felt when I saw the past posts, and thought damn the rules I have something I have to say.

You know as far as the rest, your right, the military is an interesting microcosm, and is not an absolute comparative to the real world, Its more like an indication that its possible that humanity will eventually be able to look past racism, defined as discrimination and as a social advantage.


As far as my comment of the African Slave traders, I will do proper research and if a post that has this sort of topic arrises I will be glad to offer my interpretation of the evidence.

"I don't think that the court will be so far swayed that it'll enable it to "legislate from the bench" as they say. "

Even though the current crop of judges would be in favor of my beliefs if they were able to, I hope at no point will the supreme court be allowed to legislate from the bench. Thats why we pay Legislators so much damn money

[el_boss]

I was discussing abortion with my sisters fiancé, who is a doctor. He brought up an interesting point that is very obvious, but I at least have never thought of it. Have you though about how the people doing the abortion feel? I bet not so good. I mean their job is to kill featuses. The same goes for euthanasia. It seems that people forget alot of the time, that there is actually a person that will have to do the deed.

This is not an argument for or agains abortion. I just though it was an intersteng view on the subject.

[Zinobi]

So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........

[Terracosmo]

Originally posted by: el_boss
I was discussing abortion with my sisters fiancé, who is a doctor. He brought up an interesting point that is very obvious, but I at least have never thought of it. Have you though about how the people doing the abortion feel? I bet not so good. I mean their job is to kill featuses. The same goes for euthanasia. It seems that people forget alot of the time, that there is actually a person that will have to do the deed.

This is not an argument for or agains abortion. I just though it was an intersteng view on the subject.

I think that the people who work with it rather works for the people and not for the things they have to do. I.e, euthanasia might seems like a horrible act to perform, but if the person in question really wants to die - then it's a good thing. Same with abortion. Not a beautiful act, but it's for a greater good.

At least that's how I would see it.

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........

KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

[darkmetal505]

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........

KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

common sense and intelligence are two different things

[Zinobi]

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........

KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

i would but she's just too good of a friend [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Carnage]

Originally posted by: darkmetal505

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........

KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

common sense and intelligence are two different things

Yes, but if you are intelligent, you wont be manipulated.

[Ero-Fan]

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: darkmetal505

Originally posted by: God#2

Originally posted by: Zinobi
So I have this friend and she HATES the thought of abortion, BUT She would have the baby then LEAVE it to DIE if it would save her life.........or get her what she wants............she scares me most of the time.........

KILL HER

@compliche8: if people are even easier to manipulate now adays, how can they be smarter? I smell a contradiction.

Oh, and thanks for the book recommendation.

common sense and intelligence are two different things

Yes, but if you are intelligent, you wont be manipulated.

Ha! The most gullable people I ever met were the "good students" at school. All book smarts, no common sense, you could lead them around by the nose. You need both in order to not be manipulated.

[Carnage]

hhhmmmmmm......your right. But then in conclusion, the general population is not very smart, because you can also manipulate the the pplz who arent bookworms, but are even dumber. They may have common sense, but no intelligence.