 |
| 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 |
| ||
Originally posted by emcee By "Christian views" one only means that they are views supported largely by Christians, and largely for religious reasons. A majority of Christians do oppose abortion, and a majority of people opposing abortion are Christians. The same is true with gay marriage and stem cell research. That doesn't mean that all Christians oppose them, or that all people who oppose them are Christians. There seems to be some confusion as to the definition of majority. Originally posted by SamuraiX I didn't say that American Christians represent all Christians, but non American Christians cannot vote for American politicians in American elections, and therefore, they are immaterial to a discussion about how the presence or absence of a Christian majority affects American elected politics. 
Also, I'm sure most people on this board would find net neutrality more pressing than abortion but: 1: most people on this board are young men. Older people view abortion differently than young people, and women view it differently than men. 2: this board is an international board with a surprising lack of Americans (and a disproportionate lack of Christians), and therefore is not an accurate random sampling of the American electorate. 3: Doesn't it say something about a person if he feels more strongly about the internet than about a life and death issue?
Originally posted by emcee Obviously, 80% is a figure with a large margin for error. But 80% is a statistically staggering figure. We elect presidents on a 51% or less majority. If 80% of people checked the little circle calling themselves Christians, then its fair to say that at least 51% of people are slightly more devout than average. Just look at the evidence. Have we ever had an outspoken atheist president? Have we ever had a president who refused to say "god bless America"? FDR, beloved by most Americans on both sides of the aisle, gave 10 minute long prayers over the radio during WW2. The first ever Muslim has entered congress and people are concerned that he would use a Koran rather than a Bible. Regardless of whether that concern is justified or not, what does it tell you? US abortion laws were never voted in, but were forced on the people by supreme court judges. All the evidence points to an overwhelming Christian majority. Now, a Christian majority doesn't mean that we should elect the Pope as the fourth branch of government, or that we will make Christianity the official state religion. It only means that most people in the US believe certain things. Such as there is more to life than the 80 or so years you spend on Earth, so you should plan for the long term. Just because no one is around to whiteness a crime doesn't mean you will get away unpunished. Just because a baby isn't capable of saying "please don't kill me" doesn't mean we should kill her. Life didn't spring into existence by pure chance. Just because someone doesn't regularly attend church, just because they don't belong to some imaginary Bible belt, just because they don't go door to door distributing literature doesn't mean they don't have a predictable and measurable voting record. Originally posted by SamuraiX If you say Ceteris Paribus 5 more times, you will appear more intelligent. Keep saying it. Ceteris Paribus is a common and useful tool of social scientists. Don't knock it. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| Will everyone stop with the tyranny of the majority nonsense? It's not as if this is the Aryan race making laws that bar the Jews from owning property. Passing laws that ban abortion saves lives. It has nothing to do with tyranny. The Supreme Court should be more active? They are the least democratic branch of government we have. They are appointed by elected individuals (making them two full steps removed from the people), they are given office until the day they die or retire. Their power to oversight ratio is incredibly out of proportion. A US president has incredible power, but also incredible oversight, as the public, the media, and his opponents pick at every aspect of his life trying to harm or disgrace him for a year or more prior to his election, and then the entire body of the American people have the final say on whether he takes office or not. A US congressman has very limited power, being one out of hundreds in the legislative branch of the government. But they also have less oversight, as only a few hundred thousand people vote for them, and their election process is not as grueling as a president's. So a president has a high level of power, and a high level of oversight. A congressman has a low level of power and a low level of oversight. A supreme court justice has a high degree of power and very little oversight at all. The Senate confirmation process lasts a relatively short time and is far less invasive than a Presidential race. Of the three branches of government, the supreme court is the least democratic. If we had 9 Catholics on the supreme court who ruled in favor of Christians every time, you'd be calling the US an oligarchy. But, since the supreme court agreed with you about abortion, you side with the least democratic branch of our government. The Christian majority is not tyrannizing anyone.
How about this? Let's kill everyone with AIDS by lethal injection. Their lives are effectively over anyway, as there is no cure for aids, and there is the chance that they could spread it to other innocent people. Why take that risk? Those aids patients obviously aren't contributing to society anymore, and they're a burden on their families and anyone else who has to pay their abnormally high medical bills. Are you spitting at your monitor yet? OK, you're right. Killing aids patients is wrong. It's not their fault. Instead, let's kill unborn babies. They are a burden on society, and you are effectively ruining a young woman's life if you force her to carry a baby she doesn't love. How can you be so elitist and unfeeling as to tell a woman that she can't put a fork in her baby's head and tear out his brain, or inject salt into her womb to effectively pickle him. It's her body, after all. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| Ziff, I wouldn't say SKM "blasted" you at all. He said you were arguing with him, which you were. Indeed, this is the debate forum, so arguing is commonplace. But he didn't say anything out of line to you. You said he was "ignoring everything outside of his blinded little world", which does indeed sound very condescending. He only said that you argue for argument's sake. I'd say his comment was the gentler of the two.
If I may argue for argument's sake for a moment: True, nuclear power is dangerous, but are the occasional leaks, spills, and meltdowns anymore dangerous than the billions of dollars in oil revenue going to the likes of the Saudi government and the Iranian government? I don't think that massive nuclear proliferation is the way to go either, because more nuclear material in the world makes it easier for someone like Kim Jong Il or the president of Iran to get their hands on some. But I hardly see how you can view nuclear power as less dangerous overall than oil. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| While fixing the power grids is something that needs to be done (remember that giant blackout a few years back), that still doesn't speak to the effects of pollution caused by oil, or the billions of dollars being given to terrorist funding dictators. | |||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| I desecrate threads. Call me the unholy thread vampire.
There is a difference, though. Blowing up abortion clinics is not heroic resistance any more than mob killing KKK members would be. Sure, Klansman are dumb racists but linching them or mobing them isn't the answer. We have a criminal justice system to punish Klansmen if they decide to act on their darker beliefs. In the same way, abortion should be defeated through a peaceful democratic process, not though abortion clinic bombing. Calling abortion murder in no way equates with the killing of supreme court justices and doctors who perform abortions. You should know better than that. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese  Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| Not a nuclear powered reactor under the hood of your car, no. But nuclear power that feeds into your house can be used to charge the battery of a car (such as a plug in hybrid without the hybrid part :p ). Still, I'm not advocating a 100% (or even 50%) nuclear economy. I'm only arguing for argument's sake and pointing out logic and flaws. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| And just what does this Ho-hum mean? It's not the first time you've used it. And just who are you arguing against? I don't see any raging homophobes here. :p | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| I kinda like the tune. Catchy. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| That's right. Terra form Mars, but don't visit the moon. Do you have any idea the relative distances between the Earth, Moon, and Mars? And do you even know what terra forming would really entail? | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
We can resolves the abortion issue peacefully in the US, because we have a democratic system in place. There was no such thing in Iraq. Passive resistance Gandhi style by the Iraqi people would have done nothing to remove Saddam. Only military force would accomplish that goal. Conversely, a bill could be passed tomorrow outlawing abortion by our legal, democratic representatives with no violence at all. That is the difference. Digest it.
So I don't believe that abortion is murder? How can you be sure of that? It's not true to say that, if I did believe abortion was murder, then I would advocate the murder of supreme court justices and doctors because, as I said above, there are peaceful ways to resolve the abortion issue. With Iraq, there were not. That is the difference.
So now I'm degrading "full fledged ling people" by comparing them to babies? That's truly original, in a truly disturbing way. Now who is trying to achieve a "more effective rhetorical flourish" eh? Originally posted by emcee The part of your post that I didn't quote earlier: Originally posted by emcee I contest that 33% statistic. Do you have a source for it? Here is a link with some different numbers. Link (edited by Koryo on 02-06-07 10:41 PM) (edited by Koryo on 02-06-07 10:48 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| No country in the world has truly "open" borders (for that matter, neither do they have truly "free" trade), so you're really not going to make progress here. But, I'll entertain the idea in a hypothetical sense.
The US-Mexico border is obviously the biggest immigration concern for Americans right now. Since I'm an American, that's what I'm going to talk about. If you think that makes me ethnocentirc, then you are free to start talking about some other contested border in some other country and I will respond to it. Skilled immigrant do indeed benefit the US, and I want them to come here, of course. Now, how many skilled immigrants do we get from Mexico? We could bicker about the definition of "skilled" immigrants, but this much is true: most illegal Mexican immigrants are less educated than the average American (and that's saying something, because American education has been slipping of late, unfortunately). You say that the consumption of an unskilled or low skilled immigrant still creates economic activity, but that level of consumption is about as minimal as a human can possibly have in the US. Illegal immigrants are often payed even less than the Federal minimum wage, which means that their ability to consume is severely diminished. Also subtract from that the amount of money they send back to their relatives in Mexico, and they are generating only the smallest possible level of economic activity by way of their consumption. You say they create jobs, but they also drive down the wages of citizens and legal immigrants. There is also the matter that some (more than a few) Mexican immigrants exhibit hostility to the US. I'm sure you've heard of La Raza. There are some illegal immigrants from Mexico who have no desire to participate in any sort of American dream, but instead feel that they should annex (conquer by demographics, if you will) certain southern parts of the US. There's also the matter of less assimilation. 10+ million people who speak the same language (which is not the language of the host country) are going to have a hard time assimilating and thus, rather than traveling from Mexico to America, they will simply be taking Mexico north with them. If illegal Mexican immigrants reach, say, a 70% majority in a region, say south Texas, that region will have more in common in an economic sense with Mexico than with the US. I'm not opposed to Mexican immigration, nor Mexicans, but I am opposed to floods of people coming here illegally, which means they already have demonstrated a lack of respect for our laws, messing with the equilibrium wages of US citizens, and not assimilating. For the record, I am not an English-supremest. I think the US should speak the same language. I don't care what that language is, but it should be the same. I took a year of Spanish in college and freely admit that Spanish is an easier language to learn than English. But, 250++ million Americans speak English, while less than 20 million Americans speak Spanish. Should the majority lean the language of the minority? No. If I immigrate to Germany, I would learn German. I would not expect the entire population to learn English just so they can speak to me, nor would I expect them to print all street signs, restaurant menus, and product labels in my native language to facilitate me. Again, I admit that English is a difficult language, and if the original American Revolution had been Spanish speaking colonies fighting against Spain, rather than English speaking colonies fighting against Great Britain, then we would speak Spanish today. But it didn't happen that way, and you can't change history, nor can you expect the majority to change for the minority. As it is, Spanish is the most common second language of Americans, and we print all our product labels in English and Spanish. What more can you expect? I don't believe in any American "race", but I do believe in an American culture. I want as many immigrants to come here as possible, provided they respect the country and its laws, and are actually coming to work and participate, not just to absorb welfare benefits. As we continue to increase welfare benefits, I'm sure more and more illegal immigrants will come to get some. Again, there is nothing wrong with the Mexican people. They are unfortunately disliked as a race in many cases because they are the majority of illegal immigrants. But, if the US had a border with Vietnam, Iraq, or North Korea, then we would have illegal immigrants from those countries. I don't want a border fence, but I do want more border patrol. I want more immigrants, but I want less illegal immigrants, and I certainly don't want hostile illegal immigrants. I would also happily accept people seeking an asylum of sorts. I would accept almost any Cuban, because they have a legitimate thing to run from (Castro), and I am ashamed that the US didn't deal with Castro years ago. I feel in a way responsible for the plight of the Cubans. The Mexicans, though, could do more to improve their own country. There are 100 million Mexicans (which is more than the population of most countries). They have land and even oil. They also have a mostly democratic system. Mexico could be an industrialized country on par with the US and Canada. Cubans, on the other hand, have no hope of improving their country as long as Castro is at the helm. That said, once again, no country has completely open borders or completely free trade. No country could keep track of people for legal or financial purposes if people could migrate freely between countries as they do between the individual American states. So you won't have any luck arguing this point to any national government. I could go on about illegal immigrants, but I'm sure you've stopped reading. You're probably assuming that I've said every racist cliche you can think of, and are preparing to hit me with some accusations of bigotry, racism, jingoism, nationalism, Nazism, classism, hate-mongering, fear-mongering, insensitivity, closed mindedness, and any other "ism", "ness", or "ity" that I forgot to mention. Go ahead, I'll take it like a man. (edited by Koryo on 02-06-07 11:50 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| Very well. Would you like your own cell, or would you be willing to share a cell with a criminal roommate?
A bacteria, though, cannot develop into a human. It is a biological fact that sexual reproduction in humans exists for one purpose and one purpose alone: to create more humans. Sex "feels good" because we have to want to do it, otherwise there would be no babies and we would go extinct. Human embryos do not come into existence by spontaneous generation, nor do they develop into anything other than a human. Thus, a human embryo is a potential human, which would turn into a "fully fledged" living human barring human intervention or the occasional fatal birth defect. A bacteria is not a human, either real or potential. Even a sperm cell is not a potential human, as it will not become a human on its own (for those of you not familiar with the birds and the bees, I'm sure you can read up on it on Wikipedia or some place). We have to do something to a sperm or an egg to make a human. Conversely, we have to do something to an embryo to make it not a human. An embryo is unique in that respect. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
That's only because we're speaking from a distance. If I could but lay my hands on you, you would be an instant convert. And I may not convert you, but I can very easily prove that the logic supporting abortion is full of holes. As you said, an embryo does not exhibit the characteristics of an adult human, but (as I said), it is the only thing on this earth capable of becoming an adult human. Whether that embryo is a blastocyst composed mostly of infant stem cells, or something the size and shape of a large chicken embryo, it will within a very short period of time, barring outsider intervention or rare genetic defect, become a small human. Nothing else on earth can claim that unique characteristic. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| Well quite plainly, chaos. I'm surprised I'm siding with you, SamuraiX (unless you're just playing devil's advocate), but I guess I must. With completely open borders, governments as we know them today would simply not be. The government couldn't tax people, because people could skip across the non existent border every April 15th (that's tax day here in America, for the rest of you). A government couldn't catch criminals, because they could flee across that same border or lack of a border. There would be incredible friction between these non existent governments, because one non existent government would have trouble proving when another non existent government overstepped its bounds and infringed on national sovereignty by operating beyond a non existent border.
But I don't think Arwon really means any of it. I think he's just trying to play a sort of aggressive form of devil's advocate, and trying to stick it to free-trade proponents by putting them in a position that he thinks makes them look hypocritical. (edited by Koryo on 02-07-07 03:14 AM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| Ultimately, it would be nice to use hydrogen powered cars. The technology exists, but there are problems. If I am the first person to own a hydrogen powered car in my town, where will I get hydrogen fuel? No businessman would open a hydrogen gas station in a town with only 1 hydrogen car. So I don't buy a hydrogen car until there is a hydrogen gas station, and a hydrogen gas station doesn't move in until many people have purchased hydrogen powered cars. We are at an impasse. How to make them both happen at the same time? It's going to be a slow process.
I would like to make a couple of side notes. People get upset now that industrialized economies rely so heavily on oil. There is a reason for this, and it's not because some evil rich billionaire sold his soul to the devil. Oil is an incredibly cheap, incredibly abundant, and incredibly practical fuel source. Also: what's this about the oil companies' moral obligations to help this country stop using oil? That makes no sense at all. A company should teach its customers how to avoid using the very product that made it rich? I suppose McDonald's should be teaching us to stop eating so much fast food, Walmart should show Americans how not to buy cheap clothes and toys, and Bill Gates should convince Americans to stop buying computers? Really, people who talk about the moral obligations of an oil company are just looking for someone to blame. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
| OK, until reading this thread, I had never heard someone even suggest that Obama is a Muslim (unless you count Tedd Kennedy calling him Senator Osama Bin Laden). So where does anyone get the idea that Americans are being lead to believe that Obama is a Muslim? And what is your beef with FOX news? Do you watch the channel? If you think FOX is convincing Americans that Obama is a Muslim, then you need to watch them a little more often. Even if we are speaking of the real Muslim (Keith Ellison), I've never heard FOX predicting that the moon would fall, or that the sun would rise on the wrong side, or even that he would smuggle a shoe bomb into the assembled congressmen and assassinate them all. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
I'm now being threatened by a samurai? That's hardly as impressive as the dinosaurs and transdimentional beings that usually threaten me.
You're saying that people who oppose abortion are solely basing their believe on wild passions, and not on facts? That's pretty presumptuous, considering that I do (and have thought this thread) supported my side with facts and logic, not emotion (which I think would be a more accurate word than passion, because being passionate about something is not wrong). |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Did I say there was? I didn't say "luckily, Obama isn't a Muslim cause, if he was, we'd have us a good ol' southern style linchin'." Not at all. I only said that no one assumed Obama to be a Muslim, and FOX news certainly never asserted that he was one. And you are free to not watch FOX news. But, can you provide any justification for the names FOX news has been called in this thread such as "feeding off fear and xenophobia", "disgusting", "immature", and biased, and my personal favorite a "bullshit news station." These things go far beyond simple distaste or difference of opinion with FOX. What have they done to bring out such an outburst? Perhaps someone can cite a specific example of FOX lying? |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Hysteria on any sort of blogosphere has nothing do to with FOX news. I imagine swearing in on a Koran did generate some discussion by uniformed, ignorant people who blamed all Muslims for 9/11. But then, there is far more uninformed and ignorant discussion about 9/11 conspiracies, some of which blame the Jews.
Show me this story. I think you're reading far too much into it. I have never heard anyone say that Obama is a Muslim until you started this thread.
OK so FOX news is not "news" but "commentary", and yet you watch John Stewart... which is news, not commentary? The Daily Show is commentary, and comedy at that. Half an hour of stories selected for their comedic value is news? You have no credibility to speak about FOX news' alleged lack of honest news. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6319 days Last view: 6319 days |
| ||
Alright. Your argument was calm and logical, and you didn't even call me a Nazi once. I'll agree with/ concede/ admit to most of that.
And would the Quebec separatist movement be as strong if Quebec wasn't "French Canada"? If, for instance, the majority language in New Mexico was Spanish, there is a strong chance that we will see the same thing. 10% Spanish speakers spread out evenly over the entire country would not be a problem, but a concentrated area would be.
Though those migrant groups came legally, and none of them were particularly hostile to the US, as La Raza is, for instance. There are a few Mexican immigrants (who showed up in large protests recently) who are getting caught up with the anti - "American Imperialism" crowd. Now, if a Mexican immigrant comes here, gets a job, and raises children who learn English and get better jobs, then I am happy to have them. If, however, a pregnant Mexican woman comes over and has her baby (thus making it an automatic citizen) and she then gets money from the government, and lives in a Spanish speaking community and never learns English, I am unhappy, though it would be hard for me to be heartless enough to want to kick her out. You have presented some evidence to suggest that the former is the rule. I think the later probably happens more often that occasionally, but I doubt I'd find any hard statistics on the subject, so I'll concede the point. By the way, how would you feel about US schools teaching in Spanish for the first 5 years? People could argue that it will be hard for kids from a Spanish speaking home to succeed in school if the teacher is speaking a "foreign" language, but not teaching English to kids in these critical early years would not be a good idea, IMHO. Here are some bottom lines. I like the Spanish language, but the majority of Americans speak English, and I think all Americans should have a common language. Language is one of the most powerful factors when nationalist and separatist feelings spring up. I don't want a Quebec situation in America. I agree that immigrants are good for the economy, and that America was build by immigrants (and that is a large part of what made us so successful). And if those immigrants are socially mobile and learn English, then I welcome them. I also don't want hostile immigrants, such as La Raza. La Raza and the like are of course a minority of Mexican immigrants, but there are no violent Belgians coming here. At there very least, I want to know who is coming to America, even if we allow far more legal immigrants, and that means securing the border (but not with a wall).
Edit: Every illegal Mexican immigrant I've met has been nice, but I live about as far away from our southern border as you can get. There is a bit more immigrant related crime in the states that border Mexico, and some of the most violent gangs in the US migrated from Latin America. (edited by Koryo on 02-08-07 12:32 AM) |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Koryo |
