OT: US Pres election

[licker]

Originally Posted by thejeff

You did say McCain winning would "show how pathetic the electorate has become", which implied to me that Obama winning would not.

Indeed, but I made no real distinction between Obama and McCain. That statement was based on the democrats attacks on McCain as him being a pure continuation of the Bush administration.

As to global warming...

Well its out of the news now, and I'll give you one guess why (and it has nothing to do with the election).

[Edi]

You guys want a thread on abortion, fine, we can have one. The "abortion is murder" argument straight up without qualifiers is idiocy of the highest order. As Trumanator said before, it is a matter of when the fetus starts gaining human rights and when those rights are weighty enough to overshadow the mother's right to make medical decisions about her own body.

But don't expect this to stay on topic if you keep making claims without any argumentation to back it up. Failure to pay the topic detailed attention and making pithy statements as if they were fact are one of the easiest guaranteed ways to get me to take the gloves off and bring out the brass knuckles.

Normally I'd bring a flamethrower, but gratuitous arson is generally frowned upon here.

[Trumanator]

Okay Edi, I'll try and keep the heat down :wink:

@SlipperyJim- I guess I should clarify that what bothers me about GW are the calls that we have to fix it now!now!now!, forget how much economic damage it will do. Its nice to know I'm not alone against the hordes though. (no offense intended to "the hordes", just saying I'm outnumbered.)

I didn't say abstinence only education was the one and only way to do things. Contraceptives don't work though if the teenagers want kids. I'll see if I can find the article, plus the one about the bogus rape kit story...

rape kit story: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...UwZWYwNTVlMTQ= and before you impugn the source remember that the main stream media also reported the bull about Palin covering for her daughter's pregnancy.

contraceptives only work sometimes: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...FjN2I5ZDk4Zjk=

National Review is a reputable magazine. You might disagree with its politics, but the stories are grounded in fact.

[Agema]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

I'm not entirely certain which treaties you're talking about, but go ahead and fill me in. I continue to stand by my opinion that the climate change issue is mostly hysteria. Calling abstinence and anti-abortionism backward social practices is just wrong though. The simple truth is that abstinence is the only 100% sure way NOT to get AIDS. Yes, condoms and such can help, but they don't always work and aren't always available. You guys are talking a lot about the cost of the Iraq war, but over 3,000 people die every day in the US because of abortions. Don't give the whole "when life begins" argument either, its simple biology, the real question is when do human beings get basic human rights.

"Treaties" is sloppy wording on my account, apologies - I would refer more to breaches of international conventions, unilateral actions, refusal to sign up to international courts and so on. Had the nuclear bunker-buster funding been pushed through, that would I believe have breached non-proliferation treaties.

I wouldn't call abstinence a backward social practice per se. It was in the name preventing HIV/AIDS because it caused successful tactics that were being used to reduce infection rates to be ditched. Abstinence failed to work as was widely expected by research and expert opinion - stopping people having sex is a bit like stopping people drinking alcohol, and we know how prohibition worked out. Therefore it meant many were condemned to HIV in the name of blind ideology.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Agema

I wouldn't call abstinence a backward social practice per se. It was in the name preventing HIV/AIDS because it caused successful tactics that were being used to reduce infection rates to be ditched. Abstinence failed to work as was widely expected by research and expert opinion - stopping people having sex is a bit like stopping people drinking alcohol, and we know how prohibition worked out. Therefore it meant many were condemned to HIV in the name of blind ideology.

Actually, to clarify a bit - teaching abstinence is a bit like treating heroin addicts by telling them "not to do it".

I find it awfully funny when people argue that you "can" "potentially" get pregnant while using contraceptives. Well, this is entirely true. You can also be killed in a car accident while wearing a seatbelt. We wear seatbelts AND condoms not because they are 100% guarantees of anything - but because we're not going to stop driving and copulating.


Tell your own children not to have sex - see how well that works out for you. But when you interfere with other people taking saner and more effective approaches to the problem, then YOU are causing more unwanted pregnancies with your enacting of policy. If you want to see less abortions, then DO something about it - by allowing people to make meaningful steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

This is a prime example of why our founding fathers wanted all religious doctrine kept out of government. Religious freedom relies on no one particular faith imposing their own doctrine on the non-or-differently-believing citizens of the nation. If religious extremists keep voting along doctrine lines, and trying to force their belief systems on others, sooner or later the collective masses of those who disagree are going to start sanctioning that particularly overbearing religion. Then what? Will you all resort to terrorism when everyone else makes perfectly clear that they are tired of hearing about it.....? Hmmmm.

[Tifone]

I just would like to point out that Palin is also strongly opposed by Batman

Sorry, lil' joke Oh, wait, doesn't matter, someone is still gonna call it "liberal hatred"

Really enjoying the discussion here. I see really valid points from many of you guys (I took the freedom to "thank" the most worthy, they will be useful for me in future debates probably here overseas )

[Trumanator]

Originally Posted by JimMorrison

Actually, to clarify a bit - teaching abstinence is a bit like treating heroin addicts by telling them "not to do it".

I find it awfully funny when people argue that you "can" "potentially" get pregnant while using contraceptives. Well, this is entirely true. You can also be killed in a car accident while wearing a seatbelt. We wear seatbelts AND condoms not because they are 100% guarantees of anything - but because we're not going to stop driving and copulating.

Tell your own children not to have sex - see how well that works out for you. But when you interfere with other people taking saner and more effective approaches to the problem, then YOU are causing more unwanted pregnancies with your enacting of policy. If you want to see less abortions, then DO something about it - by allowing people to make meaningful steps to avoid unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

This is a prime example of why our founding fathers wanted all religious doctrine kept out of government...

1: Heroin addicts are addicted to a chemical substance, so thats a bad analogy.
2: At no point did I say that you should never ever teach contraceptives, or if I sounded like it that wasn't my intent.
3: The "they'll do it anyway" argument is part of the problem, as all it accomplishes is to cut parents out of the equation and make them the enemy.
4: The seperation of church and state was to protect the church, not the state, and you would be hard pressed to find major elements of the constitution that weren't influenced by Judeo-Christian religion. I will also repeat, I am not a religious person, I am an agnostic.

[JimMorrison]

Originally Posted by Trumanator

1: Heroin addicts are addicted to a chemical substance, so thats a bad analogy.
2: At no point did I say that you should never ever teach contraceptives, or if I sounded like it that wasn't my intent.
3: The "they'll do it anyway" argument is part of the problem, as all it accomplishes is to cut parents out of the equation and make them the enemy.
4: The seperation of church and state was to protect the church, not the state, and you would be hard pressed to find major elements of the constitution that weren't influenced by Judeo-Christian religion. I will also repeat, I am not a religious person, I am an agnostic.

1) In fact, it's a perfect analogy. Our bodies and our brains secrete hormones, which are chemicals, which create urges to perform natural acts, such as engage in sexual intercourse. This further causes the release of pheremones, which are habit forming.

2) Well I'm glad that you are reasonable on this particular subject. However the majority of the people who preach abstinence are also 100% against contraception. Also, the point is that it doesn't matter what study you find that shows x% of people using contraception become pregnant. This will always be irrelevant in the face of the numbers that simply show that looking at the population as a whole, teaching the use of contraception is significantly more effective at reducing the rate of teen and unwanted pregnancies, than abstinence alone.

3) Parents are not "an" enemy, and young people "will" have sex. When adults are forbidden to have sex (read: priests, monks, etc), we find that many of them do anyways. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence that repressing sexual desires leads to perversion and illicit practices, while embracing sexual desires tends mostly to lead to great pleasure.

4) This is a cyclical argument actually, and so it is quite arguable that the separation of church and state was intended to protect both. Besides, the second part of what I stated was that if religious extremists push through enough doctrine into law, then the backlash will ultimately be somewhat harsh. This implies that protecting the state from interference from the church, is the only way to insure that the church is free from interference from the state. The problem being that evangelical Christians supposedly make up ~30% of the US population. They form the backbone of the Republican party, and they use that power to put a lot of pressure on Washington. The current atmosphere in America, among the other 70% of the population ranges from "agreement on some points", to "outright disgust and derision", and the situation is degrading rapidly. It is only a matter of time before it is deemed that the government must take steps to reduce the ability of the church to affect the efficient and effective governance of the people.



And seriously - with all of the vastly more pressing issues in our country today, you would let your vote be determined by such a ridiculously miniscule social issue? As if the "to condom, or not condom" argument is just so much more important than foreign affairs, our crumbling economy, our distressed energy policy, our predatory corporate regime, or corruption of our elected officials?

That's the beauty of the current 2 party smokescreen - to get you more concerned about petty personal differences, than you are about the real problems and issues facing this nation, and this world.

[Gandalf Parker]

Personally voting is fairly easy for me. I dont consider either party to be right ENOUGH to make too many changes. So I consider myself a "Toggle Party" member. Whoever has been making the laws for awhile, I vote the other direction. Give things a chance to balance out in the middle.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally Posted by Tifone

I just would like to point out that Palin is also strongly opposed by Batman

Wow, that pic is astoundingly creepy.