 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| User | Post | ||
Koryo Keese                Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| I will look into it and try to find some facts or statistics. By the way, why does no one here use the quote function? (edited by Koryo on 01-08-07 02:39 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| You could say there is a bit of a divide between the wealthiest state (Delaware with $64,437 per capita in 2005) and the poorest state (Mississippi with $27,545 in the same year). However, Delaware is tiny, with only about 800,000 people. And in fact, only 2 states have per capita GDPs of 60,000 or more, and only 5 have per capita GDPs of 50,000 to 59,000. The US per capita GDP for that same year (2005) was 41,600.
A better example might be this: 42 out of 50 states have a per capita GDP between 30,000 and 50,000 dollars (the same distance above and below the national average). And 39 states have a per capita GDP between 30,000 and 45,000. Another interesting number to crunch would be that Mississippi, the poorest state in America in terms of per capita GDP, only has about $500 less than the EU average.  So, while there is a gap, one should really say that Delaware is rich, rather than saying that Mississippi is poor. Or we could say that only two US states (West Virginia and Mississippi) are as poor as the UK, German, Sweden, France, and Italy (per capita GDPs all 27,000 to 30,000). Slovenia has a per capita GDP of 21,00, a scant half of the US average. Lastly, the US has a GDP growth rate about twice that of the EU (3-4 percent compared with 1.5-2 percent). The UK has about 2% growth rate, but the major EU players sharply decline from there with France at barely above 1%, Germany just below, and Italy barely growing at all.
However you cut it, the EU isn't as economically powerful as the US yet. Even if they did have a more centralized control system, they wouldn't have our economic power. Germany alone makes up for almost all of the EU's exports, and just 4 countries make up over half of its overall GDP. The small number of strong countries carrying a number of weaker countries is very much the case with the EU. And each of those countries spends its own money on its own military and its own economy. Until the EU can get a center of control (at least for their economy), they won't be as economically powerful as the US. Even then, they will have to bring many of their weaker countries up to par with the rest of the developed world (which is still a bit behind the US). Right now, most of the EU countries seem more interested in promising retirement benefits to their elderly rather than getting new people into the work force. The former drains money, the later creates money. Again, the EU may one day surpass the US, but I don't see it happening soon. In fact, I think it more likely that the US will sink down to Europe's level, rather than the EU rising to ours, as I see us starting to make many of the same economic mistakes they are. (edited by Koryo on 01-08-07 03:29 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Not really. As I showed above, only a couple of the states are actually considerably behind the average (and those few were higher than most European states, too). Again, even in the southern states (why do you think so little of them?) GDP is only very low in a couple of states. Comparing Romania (population 22 million) and Bulgaria (population 7 million) with Puerto Rico (population 4 million). And New Mexico has a per capita GDP of 36,000, far from the lowest. It may require some extra funds because of the harsher climate and border with Mexico, but its hardly a cement brick tied to the ankles of the US economy.
This chart, which I posted earlier, actually is PPP adjusted. Comparing PPP adjusted GDP and regular official exchange rate GDP cause problems when comparing countries that have drastically different economies. The difference between China's PPP GDP (8 trillion) and official exchange rate GDP (2 trillion) is fairly noticeable, but not so much with the US (12.31 vs 12.49 trillion) or EU (12.18 vs 13.31 trillion). Which is why I said above that, when comparing the largest western industrial economies, these figures work well enough. Still, if you want to find some statistics for those other factors that you mentioned, feel free. I've done my fair share of number crunching for the week.
And so, if the EU is barely growing, are they really likely to overtake the US, which is growing? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
|
According to the CIA worldfactbook and wikipedia, the growth rates in 2005 for the US was 3.2% and for Italy 0.1%. That’s zero-point-one percent. According to this website, the US’ GDP in 2000 was 5%, and Italy’s for the same year was 2.7%. This website records the US at 3.5% and Italy at 0.1% for 2003. According to everyone’s favorite magazine, economist.com “GDP growth is forecast to dip from an estimated 1.7% in 2006 to 1.2% in 2007, before rising to 1.5% in 2008.” According to the world factbook, the entire EU’s growth rate is 1.7%, making it much closer to Italy’s anemic growth than to Estonia’s rush to catch up to its wealthier cousisns. Estonia may have a high GDP growth rate, but that is only because it is catching up. The most developed countries, such as the US, UK, and Italy, produce new, never before heard of type wealth. They must run the economic risks of pioneering new economic ground. Developing countries like Estonia have a clear map to follow if they want to catch up to the top few countries. The fact is that the most developed countries in the EU are poorer and are growing slower than the US.
If I’m thinking only in terms of military, why have I been nattering on about GDP, per capita, growth rate, percentages, average wealth distribution, etc. If I wanted to talk about military power, I could mention that US nuclear weapons could destroy the EU inside of 30 minutes. But I didn’t. Now, onto the subject of this supposed “influence.” The US has largely ignored Latin America, for the record. Other than that, the US has considerable influence. We have done things like successfully talked Israel out of selling weapons to China. Our “influence” in terms of suggestion and coercion has decreased recently because of the rise of anti American sentiments. However, soft power “influence” is worth very little without the military to back it up. That doesn’t mean that every “suggestion” must be back up with a bombing raid. That does mean that, without the capability and the threat of a bombing raid, your words and “soft power” can become useless very quickly. No amount of soft power from either the US or the EU will convince Iran to stop building its atomic bomb. If Iran actually believed that the US was going to bomb them, they would stop their nuclear research. But they know the US is bluffing. Bush is too afraid following the situation in Iraq to risk anything else, which is a pity, because only the threat of military action will actually stop Iran. Which, by the way, is something the EU will never accomplish, I’ll put $50 on that right here and now. Just one other quick nit pick here: the EU does not have a “massive” military.
For the record, the cold war was not actually black and white, nor solely capitalism and communism. And micro powers are only rising up because the US lets them. Many of them are doing it with US dollars, and many of them would already have been crushed by a less benevolent super power, say Nazi Germany. The US is not so much being challenged because we have to be everywhere at once, but because we are squeamish and afraid of causing too much damage. (edited by Koryo on 01-08-07 05:28 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| But such a political system does not exist. You can theorize about a perfect political system all you want (which is indeed what Karl Marx did), but that won't get you there within your life time. Don't think your the first person to do that.
Also, religious ideals permeate every aspect of modern western states. You might as well come to terms with that, since it has been the case for centuries. What most non religious people would call "common sense" or "common laws" or "respect for fellow man" are in fact based on religious ideals. Many laws in the US come, however indirectly, from Christianity, because most immigrants to the US were Christian Europeans, and Europe was a largely Christian place because of the adoption of Christianity by the Romans before their collapse. I have no problem with atheists. I do, however, have a problem with atheists who can't comprehend the Christian based history of most of the west, and seem to think that their "secular modern values" simply sprang out of thin air rather than gradually evolving from Christian ethics. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb I didn't say it was Christian only based, but it is largely Christian based. Once again, you are falling into the common mistake of calling things "common sense" and assuming they are universals. But people in the Muslim world or the Buddhist influenced world do things very differently. Like it or not, religion has a very large effect on people.
Your impression of Christianity is a bit disturbing. I can't say that you're alone, though. Many people view Christianity as a holdover from the dark ages. The fact remains, though, that a majority (about 80%) of people in the US are Christians, and a majority of people in the world believe in one god or another (many of them are even the supposedly same "God of Abraham.") Just because Europe thinks atheism equates with modernity and enlightenment doesn't make it true. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Then you'll be disappointed. Originally posted by Arwon Because you seem convinced that Christians are some minority fringe group as opposed to the 80% majority in America. In Europe, however, the percentage is much lower. In Europe, people "used to be Christians", as you say. Not in America. Originally posted by Arwon Once again, 80% is not a "segment" of the population. Also, I've never said that a law should be enacted simply because it is a religious issue. I don't think the Supreme Court Justices should start regularly citing the Bible in place of the Constitution in their legal opinions and dissents. Still, where do universal moral absolutes come from if not from religion? Why is killing wrong categorically wrong? The best an atheist can say is "just because." But a religious person could say "it's wrong because the large bearded Jewish man in the sky loves all of his creations." I have no problem with atheists existing. I do, however, see little reason for them to believe in the things they do believe in. Why is it wrong to kill or steal. Just because? Why should we help the poor? Just because? Because it's "good" or "moral" or "ethical?" Without any religious system to go with it, that really means little. Still, that's not to say that atheists and other religions shouldn't be allowed in America. Originally posted by Arwon And here we are again. Most people "used" to believe in god(s)? That may be so in Australia or Europe (which is why I mentioned it earlier), but not here. I understand how good it sounds to say "just because one religion believes something is wrong doesn't make it so." It's also real easy for non Americans to harp about separation of Church and State. But many of the things that we think of as just plain old "right" these days has in fact come from a religious history. Why not kill? In some cases, it may be beneficial to a country to kill. Why not kill all the old people on life support, who are not contributing to the nation and are instead soaking up money needlessly? Why not kill the minority races who refuse to assimilate into the culture, and only cause the country problems. Does that sound familiar? Nazi Germany was a very "practical" government. If you weren't contributing to the country, you had to go. Why is that wrong? There is no logical and earthly reason not to kill such people. Sacrifice the few for the many, and make the rest of us stronger by removing the baggage that weighs us down. The only answer is that large bearded Jewish man in the sky (or whatever other deity you believe in). Also, on a side note, if a country's laws allow sodomy and, dare I say it, abortion, then perhaps throwing out religion is not such a good idea after all. Eh?
Originally posted by eemcee I wouldn't want the government to force religion on anyone. However, if this supposedly enlightened secular (atheist?) ethical thought allows things like sodomy and abortion, is it really that good? Is religion really holding people back, if it would outlaw things like sodomy and abortion? I'm not suggesting we give the reigns of the country to a televangelist. But I would like people to stop pretending that Christianity is a small segment of the population when it is in fact the vast majority (in America, at least) and it is a religion practiced by the largest segment of the religious world, not simply a holdover from the dark ages. True, no one literally calls it a holdover from the dark ages, but it is easy to see the small comments (such as what I pointed out in Arwon's posts) that show you what they really think. I have a quick story, and I'll try to be brief. I once had a college history professor who was an atheist. He always referred to Christians with the pronoun "they", when his audience (class) was probably about 80% Christian, assuming they followed the national averages. He loved to make jokes about Christians, make fun of televangelists, and point and laugh at anyone with a Christian fish bumper sticker. He would transition seamlessly from giving a completely balanced, unbiased, non judgmental, and factual account of Islam, to saying that Christian were "stupid" and "silly" because they actually believed the world was going to end and Jesus would return to earth. Did he ever mention how "stupid" or "silly" it was that the Twelver Shiites believe the world will end and the Twelfth Imam will return to earth? Of course not. Because Muslims get angry when they are insulted, while Christians take it. But all of that is just meaningless talk that I could have ignored. Then came the mid term exam. I remember it well. Question number 44. "How did the first humans arrive in South America?" The answer, which was option A, was "early humans migrated across the land bridge between Russia and Alaska and then moved south through the Americas." I knew the answer and marked it right away. Options B and C were similar with slight variations. Option D, however, made me pause. "Humans in South America were put there by an intelligent creator." I did not mark option D. But it should never have been on there. After the exam was over, the professor read went over the answers. He made a special note to stop at question 44 and moke the "kind of people" who would answer "D." My position is simple. Deny the existence of god(s) if you choose. In a country like America, you should be free to do that. But don't pretend that you created something new, as a few people I've talked to do. Some people whom I've talked to would say "I like the commandments about not killing and steeling, so I think I'll keep those. But I don't like this one about no adultery. I like adultery. I want to have sex with whoever I want whenever I want. If I want to have sex with my sister, or my son, or a 10 year old, or a horse, that should be my right. So I think I'll keep the other 9 commandments, but I'll take out that pesky one about Adultery. I'll call it Enlightened Ethical Moralism. It's all the new rage." If I take the game of Baseball and remove the third base, and I can't claim this is a new game called Koryoball. And I certainly shouldn't run around pretending that people who still play Baseball are old fashioned. "Koryoball is the way to go. Baseball is just a holdover from the dark ages when they drove a nail through your head when you had smallpox." It sounds silly, but the comparison is accurate. So, if you want laws lowering the legal age of consent to 14 (oh wait, that already exist), I mean 10, or if you want laws allowing sodomy (North American Man Boy Love associate, anyone?), or if you think abortion is an issue of "choice" not an issue of "death", then I'll harp about Christianity all I like. As for laws that hurt only the person using them, I think they are wrong and wasteful. But, I don't consider drug use and prostitution to be in that category. Wearing your seat belt while driving, for instance, is a law in Michigan. I always wear my seat belt, but I wouldn't impose it on someone else. Refusing to wear a seat belt will not increase your chances of killing another motorist, only yourself. Thus, I don't agree with the law. Drug use and prostitution, however, are different. They have already been discussed in this thread, so I don't need to spend too much time there. But I will say this. When people call for drug legalization, they usually present the picture of a middle aged working man who smokes pot on the weekends and whose drug use does not interfere with his contribution or interaction with society. But that is simply not the case. Most drug users are not middle aged casual pot smokers. As it stands now, kids are hardest hit by drugs, even while those drugs are illegal. Legalize drugs, and the amount of drugs sold to kids will skyrocket. Drugs do not hurt only the person using them. Also, I believe it was already mentioned in this thread how prostitution quickly becomes slavery. We won't even let people sell their organs (which saves lives) for cash out of fear that they will start "selling their bodies." Now you want to allow people to literally sell their bodies? No. just no. IMHO |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Emphasis mine. Perhaps you shouldn't come to class without doing your homework, then?
Reproducing is an evolutionary compulsion. Should we outlaw that?  Killing is also not always detrimental to the society. Quite the reverse, in fact. Killing the poor, sick, and inferm can benefit a country. Again, killing the few to benefit the many. And we do not find killing necessarily repulsive. Most of us find one form of killing or another to be acceptable. You might favor the killing of babies and the elderly (abortion and euthenasia), while I might favor the killing of criminals and terorists. Its still killing, though, and sometimes killing does benefit soceity, to say nothing of whether it is "right" or "wrong." |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Originally posted by Ziff I see no jerkishness in my original comment. I'm not upset, only strict.
Originally posted by C'aos I agree that most actions have hidden consequences. However, we can't babysit stupid people. If someone is going to refuse to wear a seatbelt, he might also do other things like bungee jumping, diving into the shallow end of a pool, or trying to do back flips on the sidewalk, all of which have a fairly good chance of endangering his life. We can't follow these people around and make sure they don't do anything to hurt themselves. Now, some people think I sound mean in my posts, so I'd like you to know that I feel no animosity toward you, C'aos.
Originally posted by Ziff 1: Granted, with a caveat. Yes, we are repulsed by "murder." But we all have a different definition of murder, as I said earlier. You would consider stabbing a guy in a dark alley to be murder. I agree. But I also think that abortion is murder, where you don't. 2: Yes, We look down on what the Nazis did, but they didn't look down on it. They were a nation with a completely different set of "morals" than we have, even if they only had them for a short time. 3: Being in favor of "choosing" abortions is the same as being in favor of abortion. No one delights at the death of the unborn child, and thus no one is "in favor" of abortion in the sense that no one thinks its a great thing. But people call it "choice" to dodge the awkward truth. Abortion is killing. What's worse, abortion is primarily used as birth control these days. People want to have un protected one night stands, and our acceptance of the abortion option has removed the risk. If there is no risk, why not do something? Why don't I try backflips on the side walk? Because I'm afraid I'll break my neck. I'm afraid of the risks. Take away that risk, and I would try backflips on the cement. But abortion is slightly different. By doing backflips on the cement, I am risking only my own life. Having an abortion shifts 100% of the responsibility off of the irresponsible mother and father and puts it squarely on to the tiny shoulders of the unborn baby who is, by definition, not responsible for anything. But I understand that this is not an abortion thread. My point, as it relates to what we were previously discussing is this: humans don't universally abhor "murder", because we disagree on just what "murder" is. You claim you simply want people to "choose" whether they want an abortion or not. Why not let people "choose" to stab people in a dark alley? I would consider both of them murder, and you would not. Both of us would consider a eugenics program murder, but a Nazi would not. That's the danger of an "anything goes", "liberal", and "enlightened" approach to ethics. Now, I have one other question. If laws influenced by religion (not based on religion, but influenced by it) could prevent abortions and prevent people having legal sex at 14 (sorry, some of Europe already does that) I mean 12, that helps society, IMHO. So how does religion hurt society? Obviously, the religious laws in some Muslim countries are extreme, but none of those are anything like the religiously influenced laws in the US. I would say that Europe's laws (especially sexual consent laws) are far too liberal. Edit: no, I'm not angry at Ziff either. Edit edit: In case anyone is getting indignant, the answer is no, I wouldn't oppose abortion in the case of a rape, because that is not the fault of the mother. That's a completely different case. (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 08:18 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 08:20 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 08:23 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb I think the baby who is being killed should have the final decision making power. Unfortunately, that's not possible. You're still making the mistake of talking about this as if its simply a major life decision like moving or changing careers. How would you like to have been aborted? I know I wouldn't. Originally posted by Jomb It's true that a lot of Christians don't attend church and can't quote scripture. But then, a lot of republicans or democrats don't attend party meetings, protest rallies, or donate money to their party. When it comes time to vote, though, is when it counts. Christians still believe in more traditional social behavior, such as not having sex at 14 years old. So if the issue of the age of consent was put into a national referendum, most Christians would oppose lowering it, regardless of whether they regularly attend church. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| So would it be OK to kill a person who was born with such serious genetic birth defects that they are not capable of human level thought? Of course not. Abortion has nothing to do with science or brain development. It's only OK to kill babies because you can't see them. Out of sight, out of mind. If the doctors killed the embryo by taking it out of the mother and slicing it open with a scalpel right in front of you, then you would stop supporting abortions.
Editing large bits of content after other people have already posted after you causes confusion. I usually only edit to fix spelling errors. Sometimes I will leave a little note at the bottom of a post "Edit: xyz", but that's all I add. If I have a large amount of content to add, I save it for my next post. So: 14 year olds. I guess we disagree there. I think 14 year olds are too immature to make rational decisions about sex. They're probably going to end up doing things they regret later. And if a 14 year old gets pregnant, she almost always will have to have an abortion, because a 14 year old is usually not mature enough to carry and raise a child, either mentally or biologically. But I am especially against adults having sex with 14 year olds, which probably amounts to something more like rape with "coerced consent." The 14 year old isn't old enough to say no to drugs, they're not old enough to vote, they're not old enough to join the military, and they aren't old enough to have sex. (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 09:36 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 09:37 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 09:37 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| @Jomb
You're trying to paint a better picture of abortion. You make it sound as if abortions are incredibly rare and met with days of rational, calculated, and intelligent consideration before actually being conducted. The reality is far less fluffy. Abortion, most of the time these days, is post-sex-birth control, pure and simple. This leads into the 14 year olds having sex. Life is a good teacher, but 14 year olds need not be taught in a sink or swim method. Lets say a 14 year old has sex with a 21 year old man. She gets pregnant, and immediately has an abortion. Will she ever look back fondly on her first time having sex, or those few days that she carried the baby for? No. Most likely she will have those dark memories all her life. 14 year olds do not need to learn the harsh realities of life this way. I also disagree with a 19 year old having a "sex within a committed loving relationship with their 15 year old girlfriends." Most 15 year olds are far less mature than 19 year olds. So much so that there is very little chance for a relationship based on anything but sex. Just because you can point to one or two examples doesn't make it acceptable. The exception does not prove the rule. The simple truth is that 14 year olds are not mentally mature enough to make life changing decisions. We shouldn't allow them to, and we shouldn't force them to. @SamuraiX America is a republic and a democracy (or at least the closest thing to it), just as Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. There simply are no countries where the people have absolute authority over every aspect of their government. It's not even that practical. You wouldn't want to spend your entire lie focusing on politics. While I don't particularly like how low our voter turn out is, this is still a free country where people are free to completely ignore the US political system if they so choose. You cannot point to a single "democracy" of the type that you fantasize about. So, for our purposes, the US, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc are democracies. I've never said that Christianity predates all morals and ethics. Christianity is by no means the oldest religion, and there are plenty of older religions that have since died out. However, how many American policy makers do you know who have been influenced by Buddhist morals? What about Zoroastrianism? The ancient Egyptian gods? Krishna, perhaps? It is not a "pretty big, and unfounded, assumption" that Christians believe in more traditional social behavior. It's not that difficult to prove or investigate for yourself. Who are the main opponents of gay marriage? I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage. I'm only using it as an example.
...I'm not aware that I'm on Google, much less my mean personality (I call him Jeff). |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiX And I ask you again, show me one of these "pure democracies." They don't exist. Originally posted by SamuraiX I did read it, and responded to everything I felt was relevant. Originally posted by SamuraiX As was mine, unless you thought Jeff is the name of my cat.
Originally posted by Arwon Obviously I do, since I live in America and you don't. I'm sure we have a mutual knowledge of certain famous American Christians, though. Some televangelists, perhaps? Originally posted by Awon I don't believe many people go to jail for casual drug use. In fact, I know many drug users who aren't in jail. People who deal drugs to kids, though, should go to jail. But again, I go back to the fluffy image of the middle aged casual drug user. That simply isn't the case. If every drug user did it in the privacy of his own home in a fashion that didn't interfered with his job and didn't affect anyone else, I wouldn't be upset. I could hardly view it as any different that someone who is addicted to video games. But you know very well, even if you pretend otherwise, that kids get the worst of it. It is kids (and minorities, for that matter) who are hit hardest by drugs. Everything we do to decrease the amount of drugs in the country, then, decreases the quantity that can be sold to kids. And as for prostitution, I find it slightly disturbing that I am the only one here who objects to people selling their bodies for sex. I suppose I'm also the only one who objects to 14 year olds having sex with each other (or worse, 18+ year olds). I guess I feel alone, but I'm proud to be the resident prude. 
I did overuse the word sodomy in that earlier post. I was going to come back and make an edit at the bottom of the post, but people had already replied without taking issue with it. I mean to say that I oppose child sodomy, not gay marriage.
I could tell you quite a bit about myself. Most of it would bore you, and some of it would probably upset you. What I said there, though, is true. No mater how religious-fundamentalist I may sound, I'm not trying to throw the non Christians out, or marginalize them. I understand what you're implying. You think that I wouldn't even post that unless I was thinking the exact opposite. Think what you like, but its not true. I have atheist friends, and I have a Wiccan friend, and I have black friends, and I have gay friends. I even have *gasp* democrat friends. The only friends I don't have are people from the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 11:53 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| @SamuraiX
You can't prove your intelligence by acting aloof and condescending. If you would like to point out the hypocrisy that you see, please feel free to do so. @Crashman I don't agree that constitutional monarchy is the best government system (assuming that's what you meant by "got it right") and few here agree with you. Monarchies are (or should be) relics of the past. While Great Britain is very free and democratic, I think a republic form of government would be better. Still, I think there are far more pressing concerns in the world, such as creating democracies in countries that have none, rather than slightly improving the democracies that already exist. But if it is someone's quest to transform the constitutional monarchies into republics, then by all means do it. I think your cheap shot at the US might have been received as slightly more substantial had you offered any... substance to go along with it. I hate no one. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiX I know the difference on paper. The difference in real life is not so clear cut. If you can point out one (just one) example of a functioning "democracy" (using your fantasy definition of the word) that exists today, then I will concede the point that the US is not a democracy. Since I don't expect you can do that, then I will continue to say that the US is a democratic country. Originally posted by SamuraiX Please do. I'm holding my breath. Originally posted by Arwon I never said "middle class" drug users (a rather inaccurate term) don't exist. I even said that, if they are the only kind of drug users, then I would not be so opposed to drug users. But they are far from the average drug user, and they are far from the majority of drug users. And the Economist seems to have answered one of your questions for you. Wealthy people can more easily conceal their drug use. And how can you know that drug users are "end users"? What makes you think they would never deal, and especially never deal to children? If you arrest anyone with drugs, then drugs are less likely to get into the hands of kids. I could accept that less jail time for drug users, though, would be OK, but I will not accept drug legalization. You put foreword a poor argument:
That's the same argument used earlier about prostitution, and its just wrong. Sure, illegal murder would never happen... if we legalize murder. Illegal theft would never happen... if we legalize theft. So people buy drugs illegally now. We could indeed make sure that no one ever buys drugs illegally again... by legalizing the sale of drugs. But if you do all of these things, you still have people murdering, stealing, and using drugs. I hardly think that would make society better off. Obviously, the first two examples are silly, but so is drug legalization. If drug use is legal, I guarantee you that you will see more kids being sold drugs. I love everyone. (edited by Koryo on 01-12-07 10:16 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| The cultural acceptability of a substance can work both ways. Some things are illegal more because they are culturally unacceptable than because they are harmful. Other things are culturally unacceptable because they are illegal. However, the later is not always the case. Mary Jain is rapidly becoming more and more culturally acceptable despite its legal status. During American Prohibition, alcohol was illegal, but still culturally acceptable.
Obviously, not all drugs are the same. Some are more addictive than others. Still, most of them are more addictive than alcohol. You don't need to research these drugs to find that out. Information about them is readily available. It seems like some people are talking about weighing the costs and benefits of particular kinds of drugs. Why? All of them are more addictive than potato chips, so why try to determine which are more or less addictive or more or less harmful? They are all harmful and addictive in one way or another, which is why they are illegal. It seems many people are still fantasizing about a fairy land where middle aged middle class white guys do drugs in their living room on the weekends, and lead otherwise normal lives. The reality is kids and the impoverished being exploited by drug dealers. If you legalize or decriminalize drugs, you will see more drugs in the hands of kids, I guarantee it. Originally posted by Sinfjotle Let's look at Athens, the largest of the Ancient Greek democratic states, as our example. True, the democracy was much more direct than modern republics or constitutional monarchies. However, only adult male citizens with military training were allowed to vote. This excluded slaves, foreigners, and women. In fact, the voting population was a minority (and not a 49% minority, either). Further, the voting population was measured in the tens of thousands, not the tens of millions or hundreds of millions, as some democratic countries of today are. The democratic states of ancient Greece are a topic of interest to historians in large part because they were a rare item. I'd go so far as to suggest that modern democratic countries are more accountable to the people, considering that the "people" of Athens excluded so many. I'm not denying Athens' great contributions to history and culture. I am excluding them as a realistic example of how modern democratic nations of 300 million people are supposed to function. Originally posted by SamuraiX I have never referred to the US as a pure democracy. I don't even use that term. Nor did I use the term "will of the masses." And it does indeed matter what 80% of the people think. How many US presidents have not been Christians? How many congressmen? It will be harder to determine with congressmen, because their religious views are less closely scrutinized, as they have less power individually than the president. But a vast majority, in both cases, have been Christians. Why? First, its simple numbers. A person drawn from a pool that is 80% Christian already has an 80% chance to be a Christian. And beyond that, traditional Christians prefer a president who shares their religion. Why do you think the US presidents always close their speeches with "God bless America?" Is it because they are all such devout Christians that they think America will cease to function if God withdraws his blessings? No. They do it to curry favor with the Christians in America, of which there are more than a few. Despite the democrats characterization of the Republicans as the rich white Christian party, the democrats also try to curry favor with Christians. If you think the 80% Christian majority does not matter in elections, then ask yourself this: would any candidate in the 2008 presidential election dare say "I'm [insert name] and I am a hard line atheist. I categorically reject the existence of God, Jesus, or any higher power, and moreover I think that all Christians are woefully misguided." No one who said that would get elected president in the US unless the opposing candidate was assassinated. It's not any religious extremism. It's the simple fact that people vote for candidates who think the same way they do. Since most voters are Christians, they will vote for Christians more often than not. Since the candidates know this, they all talk like Christians, whether they actually are or not. You don't need a direct "pure" democracy for the religious views of the majority to show through. I'm not sure why we are still debating this particular topic.
Originally posted by SamuraiX So I'm ignorant and insincere? (edited by Koryo on 01-14-07 02:15 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| I didn't say all atheists are the same. Obviously, there is variation in any group. But the point stands that no president who said that would get elected. Obviously (again) that was exaggerating. That should be fairly obvious to you. But even if a presidential candidate only said that he was an atheist, without any of the other things I mentioned, his chances would be hurt. It doesn't mean that no one would vote for him, nor does it mean that no Christians would vote for him, but he would get less votes than he otherwise would have. Really, I don't see why this is a subject for debate. Does anyone doubt that the 80% majority opinions do not translate into American laws via our democratic elections, however indirect they may be? Its as if I'm trying to prove that birds fly. (edited by Koryo on 01-14-07 03:56 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| I think you know the facts and my point quite well. You really don't need to talk about how voters can become disillusioned. Back to my bird analogy, you might as well be arguing that birds have feathers. Yes, a fundamentalist candidate could go overboard and alienate the more moderate Christians. What's your point? That's pretty much the way humans work. And Christian voters look at issues just the same as everyone else. A black voter is more likely to vote for a black candidate. But, if that black candidate has political views that go against what that particular voter stands for, the color of his skin won't be enough to get him elected. In the same way, Christians are more likely to vote for Christian candidates. But, if that Christian candidate has political views that go against what that particular voter stands for, his religion won't be enough to get him elected. Savy? (edited by Koryo on 01-14-07 04:26 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| How much more can we realistically expand on Earth? Our natural resources and land use are already strained. Remember, every day that we spend cooped up on Earth is another day living under the threat of extinction by nuclear war. It is accepted by many historians that the early US avoided many of Europe's social problems because we had an open frontier. In Europe, if you didn't like where you were, you were stuck there. In the US, you could leave your troubles behind and move farther and farther west. Today, Earth is getting to be like those crowded European cities. I believe tensions between humans will only continue to rise on Earth until we can expand somewhere else (and there is only one place left to expand to: space). It seems to me like a common false assumption that too many people have: "we should make earth perfect before we consider expanding beyond earth." I don't think that's ever going to happen. One last thing. Think back to the space race between the USA and UUSR. Competition got the American scientists kicked into full inventing gear. Since then, what advances have we made to space exploration? Few that were as ground breaking. I don't think the technology to colonize space is likely to be invented, much less perfected, until we actually start doing it. I think the best case scenario (for getting humans onto other planets as soon as possible) would be a new space race between, say, the US and China. I think people who think we shouldn't go to the moon fail to see the big picture. What will human civilization be like in 100 yeras? 500 years? Do you really expect us to sit around contemplating our naval for the next 5 centuries? Humanity needs to do something, and colonizing space is the only thing left to do. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| Wow, I like your style. Especially the part with the sheep.
We should begin immediately. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
