Announcement Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.
political debate Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Hank
    Many "conservative activists" do want to oppress people. Maybe they aren't seeing it that way, but when you propose laws restricting freedoms or favoring certain groups over others, well, it's oppression.

    Hank.
    Well, thats where people take different stances.. How free should we be? Anarchist free? or Free with control? Take freedom of speech for instance. Janet Jacksons wardrobe "malfunction" in the superbowl was a hot button topic. Liberal people saying "well its a free country and let them do what they want. People watch porn anyways and it was tame in comparison". On the other hand (which is more towards the side i'm on) why are we letting this being shown as a "family show" nationally where little kids watch? Don't we have rating systems in place for what content is in these shows? This topic is a whole argument in itself..

    As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".

    As for liberals being bad, it depends on the level. If you are blindly saying liberal is good without thinking of how bad it can get, then i believe that is bad since it can become communist or anarchist. Thats why i believe in balance.. Being overly conservative is bad too (ie nazi, or zionist). My history teacher in HS explained this well. If you take a piece of paper and looked at the far left and the far right, the edges can touch together when you curl it up and you basically have the same thing. Overly crazed, power hungry, extremists with no sense of anything else. And since these guys are polar opposites, they clash.

    my 0.02$(US),
    Tim

    Comment


    • #92
      Your not getting it. you realy have misunderstood my issue, nor my meaning. Let me sit down and clarify this, because i dont want someone taking the wrong impression from me.

      The minority must ALWAYS be represented. racial, ethnic, creed, sexuality, whatever. This country was founded to ensure EVERYONE had EQUAL rights. It is not my intention to say that the majority is always right, nor do i make a claim the minority cannot lobby for change. My problem, and the big problem with the supreme court system, is the minorit imposing there will over the rest of us. EQUALITY is wonderful, but it must be TOTAL, not repressing one group, minority or majority, for the other group to be promoted.

      The salvery example is an issue of human rights. it is not a principle advocated by our constitution(not in the meaning anyway.....) becasue it limits others rights.....kind of a bad example

      Comment


      • #93
        You didn't clarify yourself in the slightest. Maybe you should give an example.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by samurai999

          As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".

          As for liberals being bad, it depends on the level. If you are blindly saying liberal is good without thinking of how bad it can get, then i believe that is bad since it can become communist or anarchist. Thats why i believe in balance.. Being overly conservative is bad too (ie nazi, or zionist). My history teacher in HS explained this well. If you take a piece of paper and looked at the far left and the far right, the edges can touch together when you curl it up and you basically have the same thing. Overly crazed, power hungry, extremists with no sense of anything else. And since these guys are polar opposites, they clash.

          my 0.02$(US),
          Tim
          The point you make about guns is valid. often a "dangerous assault rifle" is used as a sporting weapon. I was shooting a real Russian built AK-m(aptimat(sp) kalashnikov 1947 modern.......almost ANY ak you see is technicaly an AK-m) target practicing just a few months ago. the friend who owned it collects them. he has never commited a crime worse than speeding. Again its the difference in culture and usage. Its hard to control things that are used safely and responsibly in one instance, and slaughtering people in another.

          the second paragraph is realy a fairly accurate of the problems with radicals hehehehe

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Neil Gendzwill
            I see... just picking an example out of the air, here. I guess the minority of black people that were slaves were wrong to want to change their status. This change of status had a big negative impact on the white majority who were owners. As the majority is always right...
            Picking extreme examples is and excellent testing technique for scientific and mathematical equations, but not social issues.



            To be crass, this example fails because slaves were not citizens protected under the Constitution, in much the same way illegal aliens and minor children are not today. A better example would be the civil rights movement in the south US in the 50s and 60s. Slavery wasnt a good thing, and slaves being made free is not an example of what drizzt was referring to.



            When minority rights are forced upon the majority (and up-held by the newly self appointed legislative branch of government the courts), in matters that do not oppress or harm minority groups, democracy fails. These types of issues are championed by US liberals who use the issues for publicity, and to get votes at election time. These issues are routinely not championed, or pursued by more than a handful of people who are minorities.



            An example (not an extreme one, but a rather common one in the US and England from what I understand) is Christmas decorations in public. Now its debatable if a Christmas tree is oppressive to a muslim or a jew, but most jews and muslims in the US could care less about Christmas trees. At the same time, any retaliatory attempts by majority groups to have minority religious symbolism removed from public, is shot down by US liberals and the plaintiffs branded as racists.



            European liberals (the Greens for example), and other socially progressive groups, who work within the system of government that exists in the US, do not (in my conservative opinion) have the same negative connotation as US liberals who find ways to circumvent the democratic process.



            After sooo many national defeats, US liberals are using lawyers and the courts to pass laws, instead of congress. The ultimate political sour grapes. It is this practice that has a lot of US citizens upset, and tainted the term liberal with a negative connotation. While some people agree with and applaud the outcome of these situations, it is definitely not a government of the people, by the people



            Just an FYI for forum members outside of the US. In general, the citizens of the US more closely identify with conservative then they do socialist. Two Regan terms, GB, two Clinton (extremely conservative for a Democrat) terms, and now two fairly won GWB terms. The news that is broadcast in this country definitely has a slant that runs opposite of the majority views, so be careful of what data you use to determine the political climate in the US.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Theta
              An example (not an extreme one, but a rather common one in the US and England from what I understand) is Christmas decorations in public. Now its debatable if a Christmas tree is oppressive to a muslim or a jew, but most jews and muslims in the US could care less about Christmas trees. At the same time, any retaliatory attempts by majority groups to have minority religious symbolism removed from public, is shot down by US liberals and the plaintiffs branded as racists.
              See, there's an excellent example - probably the sort of thing that Drizzt was thinking of. But it's still a gray area. For example, I disagree with such a regulation (if it exists anywhere, it certainly doesn't here) but wholeheartedly agree with banning of school prayer in public school systems. I'm sure lots of conservatives don't see the difference. The difference is that in one case, the state is interfering with practice of religion (assuming for the sake of argument that a Christmas tree is a religious symbol). In the other, it's trying to teach religion. The state has no business being involved with religion at all, other than to protect people's rights to practice whatever religion they want (so long as such practice remains within the law).
              Last edited by Neil Gendzwill; 28th April 2005, 07:49 AM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by samurai999
                As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".
                Your data is incredibly inaccurate on what "AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs" are used for. I work in a forensics lab as a firearms examiner, and the percentage of "AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs" that are used in crime are extremely low. Easily less than 1% of AKs in the US are used "to kill people". The most popular type of firearm used in crime (based on statistics gathered for a 2 year period in my lab) is a Ruger 9mm handgun, followed by the Lorcin/Bryco/Jennings family of handguns in various calibers.

                The absolute lowest used type of guns used in crimes are .50 caliber rifles (now banned in CA, but never once used in a crime).

                I agree with the rest of your quote. Here in Phoenix Arizona we have a new squad of detectives whos job it is to make sure that criminals who are caught with guns get prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Instead of letting local prosecutors plea bargain away weapons charges, prohibited possessors found with firearms are being brought up on weapons charge, or it is taken to the federal level. THIS is what is needed to curtail gun violence. Not punishing honest, law abiding citizens who have a right to possess firearms, by taking their guns from them.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Neil Gendzwill
                  In the other, it's trying to teach religion. The state has no business being involved with religion at all, other than to protect people's rights to practice whatever religion they want (so long as such practice remains within the law).
                  But prohibiting a muslim from praying is not protecting the muslim's rights to practice whatever religion they want. I believe muslim girls in France are prohibited from wearing their head scarves (or they were thinking about it), that is directly interferring with religion by the state - legal? there, but unconstitutional (my opinion) in the US. What prohibiting prayer in school does is prevents EVERYONE from practicing ANY religion.

                  In the US we are Constitutionally protected "...congress shall pass no laws..." "freedom of religion", not "freedom from religion".

                  Now if a school forces all students to say the same prayer, or pray at the same time, that isn't right, and I agree with you that "uniform prayer in school" should be banned. But prayer in school shouldn't be banned.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Theta
                    But prohibiting a muslim from praying is not protecting the muslim's rights to practice whatever religion they want. I believe muslim girls in France are prohibited from wearing their head scarves (or they were thinking about it), that is directly interferring with religion by the state - legal? there, but unconstitutional (my opinion) in the US.
                    I agree with you there. The French ruling is stupid.
                    What prohibiting prayer in school does is prevents EVERYONE from practicing ANY religion.
                    Not at all. It's preventing you from praying at that moment - it doesn't infringe on your religion, unless you're muslim or some other religion with required prayer breaks.
                    Now if a school forces all students to say the same prayer, or pray at the same time, that isn't right, and I agree with you that "uniform prayer in school" should be banned. But prayer in school shouldn't be banned.
                    I agree - but that's the real issue, isn't it? The pro-prayer people want everyone to stand up and recite a Christian prayer at the start of the day. If you change it to a generic prayer, that's stupid - and discriminates against the atheists anyways The right thing to do is simply not have any organised thing. If a kid wants to pray on the school grounds, let them - they can pray 5 minutes before class starts as well as 5 minutes after.

                    The real issue is instruction of religion, which is entirely up to the family of the child. If they want to reinforce that instruction in the school, then they should enroll their child in a religious school.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Neil Gendzwill
                      I agree - but that's the real issue, isn't it? The pro-prayer people want everyone to stand up and recite a Christian prayer at the start of the day. If you change it to a generic prayer, that's stupid - and discriminates against the atheists anyways
                      Agree mostly. My understanding of the origins of the prayer in school debate is two seperate problems:

                      1) At the beginning of class the Pledge of Allegiance, where "One nation under God" is recited. The problem here being the athiests. "God" is generic enough to be acceptable to most religious people [and I don't think it's stupid to be generic, rather it's one of the main foundations of the US - we were founded as a religious nation, just any religion you choose to follow]. It's the athiests that get their knickers in a bunch. Well bad news people, athieism isn't a religion, and therefore not protected under the Constitution. "Freedom of religion", not "Freedom from religion".

                      2) Saying a silent prayer before lunch. This one is debatable, based on how it is an "organised" prayer session. I could see it prohibited if there is a good case where a religious group is prohibited from offering a silent prayer before meals. Other then that, I don't see a problem with even this "organized" prayer situation.

                      Originally posted by Neil Gendzwill
                      The right thing to do is simply not have any organised thing. If a kid wants to pray on the school grounds, let them - they can pray 5 minutes before class starts as well as 5 minutes after.

                      The real issue is instruction of religion, which is entirely up to the family of the child. If they want to reinforce that instruction in the school, then they should enroll their child in a religious school.
                      There is no "right" thing. A "right" thing would be something that makes everyone happy, or an "absolute" correct decision is handed down by a supreme being (still waiting on one of these - "We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to bring you a new release from God itself."). That isn't possible here. What "should" be done is that which offends the least amount of people, and is still legal. In today's highly polarized times, where "conservatives" and "liberals" are at each other's throats (in the US at least), both camps should remember that there is no "right" thing. Each side has a valid point based on their own subjective interpretations of the situtation. In an oligarchy, the few (upper social class/rich) control the decisions made. In a democracy the decisions should be made by public vote, unless the decision is illegal, and then the people need to vote again.

                      The scenario you point out, an organized recital of a christian prayer, shouldn't be allowed in a public school. I've never heard of such an example, but I wouldn't put it past some more rural areas to do this. Most prayer in school controversies are the scenarios I listed above. Even if everyone in attendance is christian it should still be banned, because it is in effect government establishing religion. In that case, the parents offended by the prohibition should enroll their students in a private/religious school [but then they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support the public school anymore, but that is another debate].
                      Last edited by Theta; 28th April 2005, 09:33 AM.

                      Comment


                      • i dong have time to read all this right now, yall were busy people while i slept dang.


                        the christmas decorations are a good example. i think i calrified my statement completely. I am AN ABSOLUTE EQUALIST when it comes to freedoms. No groups rights can be restricted for the promotion of others. I woudl feel the same way if a minority group was told to stop something because it offended me........ what were doing in the US today is coming dangerously close to the harrison Bergeron principle(if someone understands that i will give you an e-cookie ).

                        A Democratic government cannot survive by catering to the lowest common denominator. They must recognize them, they must promote them, but they must look to the silent majority as well.

                        The problem with the US is we have become so **** politiclay correct, if I protest what another race, religion,creed is doing, im a RACIST or a BIGOT. if they protest what im doing there "fighting oppression for there rights".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by samurai999
                          Well, thats where people take different stances.. How free should we be? Anarchist free? or Free with control? Take freedom of speech for instance. Janet Jacksons wardrobe "malfunction" in the superbowl was a hot button topic. Liberal people saying "well its a free country and let them do what they want. People watch porn anyways and it was tame in comparison". On the other hand (which is more towards the side i'm on) why are we letting this being shown as a "family show" nationally where little kids watch? Don't we have rating systems in place for what content is in these shows? This topic is a whole argument in itself..
                          I think the Jackson Boob Event was taken up as a cause (and blown way out of proportion) by certain minority groups to move an agenda - ie the ultraconservative family groups that want to control what people see in the name of religion. I find it funny how it's always sex that has these groups' panties in a bunch but violence doesn't seem to bother them at all. I say - it was an accident - stuff like this happens, there should have been a 5 second delay to catch these things, but, oh well.

                          As for guns, AKs, sawed off shotguns, uzis, subs, etc are rarely used for "self-defense" or hunting or for sport. They are mainly used to kill people and unfortunately if people want them, they'll get them (illegally or legally). But, I support sport shooting (I tried that as a kid with a .22 with the boy scouts), hunting, etc. But not in the hands of criminals, or loons. It is really hard to keep track of what kinds of guns should be illegal or not since a lot of guns change every day in addition to having different types come out and therein lies the problem of some form of control.. My friend is a sport shooter and competes in tournaments. His gun, a "sports version of an M16" rifle that is regularly used at competitions for years was banned by the state of california recently since they redefined it as an "assault rifle".
                          Yeah, that's a problem. How do you let the sane people have fun with guns while keeping them away from the nutjobs? It's a hard question.

                          As for liberals being bad, it depends on the level. If you are blindly saying liberal is good without thinking of how bad it can get, then i believe that is bad since it can become communist or anarchist. Thats why i believe in balance.. Being overly conservative is bad too (ie nazi, or zionist). My history teacher in HS explained this well. If you take a piece of paper and looked at the far left and the far right, the edges can touch together when you curl it up and you basically have the same thing. Overly crazed, power hungry, extremists with no sense of anything else. And since these guys are polar opposites, they clash.
                          That circular thing was shown to me back in school, too. I think that's true for what we've seen historically. But, I consider myself a liberal and I don't want anything like the totalitarian regimes of the past. I think people should be allowed to do what they want to do as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else (who isn't consenting to be hurt). And, fiscally, I feel sorry for people and realize that a stable society can't have large extremes, so I'm for welfare and stuff like that for people who need it.

                          Hank.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by drizzt
                            No groups rights can be restricted for the promotion of others. I woudl feel the same way if a minority group was told to stop something because it offended me........ what were doing in the US today is coming dangerously close to the harrison Bergeron principle(if someone understands that i will give you an e-cookie ).
                            Which minority group is having its rights promoted at the majority's expense right now? I can't think of any. Did you have something in mind?

                            I get the Vonnegut reference, but my browser's not accepting cookies at the moment.

                            A Democratic government cannot survive by catering to the lowest common denominator. They must recognize them, they must promote them, but they must look to the silent majority as well.

                            The problem with the US is we have become so **** politiclay correct, if I protest what another race, religion,creed is doing, im a RACIST or a BIGOT. if they protest what im doing there "fighting oppression for there rights".
                            The problem with non-political-correctness is that a lot if it IS racist and bigotted. Some of it's not, but whenever someone complains about PCness or says (boasts) that they're not being politically correct, half the time or more, they are being racist or bigotted. Calling groups of people names, belittling their beliefs, making fun of their language - anything putting them down in relation to oneself is biggoted. I'm not saying you are doing this, I'm just relating my observations.

                            Hank.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Theta
                              1) At the beginning of class the Pledge of Allegiance, where "One nation under God" is recited. The problem here being the athiests. "God" is generic enough to be acceptable to most religious people [and I don't think it's stupid to be generic, rather it's one of the main foundations of the US - we were founded as a religious nation, just any religion you choose to follow]. It's the athiests that get their knickers in a bunch. Well bad news people, athieism isn't a religion, and therefore not protected under the Constitution. "Freedom of religion", not "Freedom from religion".
                              Look at the spirit of the words instead of the semantics and I think you'll find that atheism is indeed covered by this. By keeping the wall between church and state, no one is preventing you from practicing your religion. But, by breaking down that wall you are saying to large groups of people that they are wrong and are not wanted in this country. Theocracies suck and always lean toward the totalitarian side of rule. Bad.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Hank
                                I think the Jackson Boob Event was taken up as a cause (and blown way out of proportion) by certain minority groups to move an agenda - ie the ultraconservative family groups that want to control what people see in the name of religion. I find it funny how it's always sex that has these groups' panties in a bunch but violence doesn't seem to bother them at all. I say - it was an accident - stuff like this happens, there should have been a 5 second delay to catch these things, but, oh well.
                                Hank.
                                Ya, I'm also not too into the ultra-conservative "all hail the Lord" type of politics. Although religion should be part of our society, it can't be such that it consumes you (like the radical muslims for example). Eithics is such that it is a grey area in itself. What is right and wrong? People have been trying to define that for eons.... Then when it all seems to be defined, somebody just redraws the borders (stirs the pot) and the whole debate rages on again...

                                In terms of violence, that can range into a number of things. Banning violence such as war footage may be good since it is usually shown during "family time" and since it might reveal too much and could compromise the safety of our troops. I don't want to know what our troops are doing if that'll endanger their lives.

                                Tim

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X