In My Memory

I was thinking about the different ways people have tried to justify abortion. And, it occurred to me that there is a strange justication for pro-choice that goes something like "its her body, her choice" and "the unborn person is not a life". I dont think people reason consistently about this. For instance, while there is a sharp divide between people who believe in "her body, her choice", almost everyone agrees that alcohol abuse during pregnancy is a very very bad thing. So, it makes me wonder how people can justify the simultaneous belief that the unborn person is not a life for the first 6 months (implying that its not morally valuable or cannot be harmed) and the prohibition on women using alcohol at any time while pregnant. I'm certain there is a very logical reason for opposing pregnant women drinking, and I bet these reasons will probably look a lot like pro-life explanations for opposing abortion. Just a thought that suddenly came to me, and I wanted to throw it out in the open for discussion.

I'm glad semag68 and Miscdoc scored lower than me, I thought I was going to be a fringe member. <-- Green Party

Ku, Not true in all cases. The Stalinist regime is one of the most oppressive there have ever been, yet Stalinist "culture" is one of the most instantly recognizable in the world. On the other hand, Generation X has opened the door to the most tolerance, freedom, and diverse expression there has ever been, but I challenge you to define it People dont like to admit their beliefs are contradictory, so I'm willing to bet two quiches and a carton of Silk that you'll find people saying things like "I'm not a racist, I'm not intolerant - I'm all for multiculturalism... at least as long as people stick to their own kind".

I remember when I wrote a 10 page paper on the difference between liberals and libertarians - it was the most tedious thing I've ever tried to do in my life. But' date=' basically, the difference between liberals and libertarians is hard to define, first because liberalism has about a million different forms (from Smith, Locke, Jefferson, Dewey, Mill, Montesquie, Rawls, etc.), and second because libertarians claim to be classical liberals when they really arent. People think this sounds like splitting hairs, but its really just a consequence of using the same word to mean a lot of different things. But, for your reading pleasure, here's the basic difference: There are really two types of libertarians: 1) Libertarians (capital "L"), your Micheal Badnarik-ish, Robert Nozick-y anarchocapitalists (Ayn Rand does not deserve to be mentioned). This is broken down into the newly created categories of Civil Libertarians and Economic Libetarians. 2) libertarians (small "l"), a variety of liberalism that holds that rights have their origins in first the ownership of your own self and capacities, and second that rights are based on whatever resources or abilities others have chosen to transfer freely among each other. Its no surprise that libertarian theories are often very compatible with social contracts like Locke and Rousseau. And two (or really a dozen) types of liberals: 1) Liberals (capital "L"), favor centralized government and skeptical of laissez-faire economics - at least thats what it means in the US. This has little philosophical resemblance to any theories of liberalism I've ever come across, I blame the MTV. 2) liberals (small "l"), belief that minimal governement is defended on a basis of morality and economic prosperity (Adam Smith liberal); belief that man is progressive and holds a romantic appeal to individual rights (John Stuart Mill liberal). Its really amazing that people think that liberalism - with its strong emphasis on individual rights - has anything to do with socialism (collectivism) or communism (statism). Both liberalism and libertarianism are unified on a basis of strong individual rights, but the truth is that there are some forms of liberalism which are non-libertarian. However, the strange thing is that the people who are members of the Libetarian party often espouse ideas that are unconnected entirely libertarianism as a philosophy (I believe for the most part these people consider themselves libertarians, but they dont understand the theory, so they misrepresent it). It isnt fair to say "[i']liberals who think they're libertarians are just deluding themeslves[/i]", because there are circumstances where this is definitely not true such as in the case of Locke and Thomas Jefferson. And, for what its worth, consider this: Libertarians who think they are libertarians are just deluding themselves. Confused yet

AzurePhoenix, Oh! What a lovely young woman you are! Another pic like that and all the SFN guys will swoon all at once for you

I think the polical archaetypes are going to look like this: (Based on US Archaetypes) | | | 2 5 | | 1 ---------+--------- | | 6 4 | 3 | | 1) Democrats 2) Republicans 3) Greens 4) Socialist 5) Communist 6) Libertarian You're a socialist

Mind you, the picture is a little dark, but that shouldnt be a problem:

Gay Teens Executed In Iran: UK Gay News - Iran Executes Gay Teens By Hanging: This is awful

Atinymonkey, What makes it a loaded question? And how would you rephrase it to make it neutral?

Dave, I just get a blank window. It just sits there being blank. Like it has nothing better to do than be an utter blank void. Like it blankly wants nothing better to be frustrate me with its blankness. It mocks me with its blankness. What the bl*nk? Blankety blank, blank blank.

Mokele, The man has been identified as a legal resident of London named Jean Charles de Menezes, he was Brazilian, and he spoke English fluently. He was a citizen who was executed by the police on a basis of what? What did he do to look like a terrorist? According to CNN News, he was petrified by the site of three plain-clothes officers chasing him and waving guns. Almost everything about this is just plain wrong: 1) the police shot at the guy after he had already been tackled to the ground and subdued 2) and its completely irresponsible to pull your gun out on a guy with other officers piled on top of you 3) the police officers acted with excessive force, they should have used a mase or nightstick or similar incapacitating device rather guns. This guy didnt deserve to die - he simply made an error in judgement in choosing to rrom plain clothes officers coming at him with guns. And the police officers, for killing an innocent person, they should be prosecuted - if they arent, then it sends a message that killing innocent people is ok.

For me, getting to know people by their usernames and avatars is just like getting to know them on a first name basis. I know for a fact, if I met most of the people from this board in person, I'd call them by their username. And when I read posts, I imagine the person writing the post looks like their avatar (I like when people use pictures of themselves, because when it feels more like the poster is speaking on a more personal level).

I was surprised () to see that this board didn't have a thread dedicated to the all-knowing Political Compass test. So, here it is. Take the test at http://www.politicalcompass.org/, then post your results. I'll go first: Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.90

Bettina, Probably not. But, you could always try typing in ALL CAPS, maybe even throwing in a little BOLD, perhaps making your font REALLY BIG AND RED. (I'd suggest throwing in a lot of "!!!!!", but that would be overkill.)

Today is June 22, Pi Approximation day Now, how to celebrate? With pie! Now the only question is, are your friends cool enough to celebrate ~Pi Day with you?

It reminds me of the George Carlin routine on euphemisms. The moral of the story is to bury the pain under a mountain of jargon. "Bobby, you didnt flunk the 8th grade, you're just a penultimate achiever!"

Dak, It doesnt matter what the churches think, because marriage is a state thing that involves legal rights. People dont want gays to have those legal rights (fundamentally, its no different than denying gays the right to vote or the right a trial by jury). In terms of the state, marriage is secular. (There's a lot of talk about "civil unions", but thats just a redundant term for something we already have in our country - strangely, not as many people are offended by calling it a "civil union" than a "marriage". I dont know why this is, because many people already recognize several other kind of non-religious marriage, like common-law marriage.) Marriage ceremonies take place in the church, and civil marriages are taken care of by the state - but, for some reason, many people think they are the same thing, and its due to this mistake that people are under the impression that legalizing gay marriage means forcing churches to marry people against their interests. But, for the sake of argument, lets just say that religious marriage and legal marriage were the same thing. Now, what are we supposed to do when one church marries gays and another church refuses to - which church are we supposed to base our laws on? If you answer is "IMM, that doesnt make sense - we shouldnt single out one particular church out of all the others and one particular religious belief to make law, because that would be a violation of church and state", then you would be correct. Aardvark, They are also being denied to marry at the courthouse. And our Defense of Marriage Act allows states to refuse recognizing the legal status of marriages in other states (this is unconstitutional as its an obvious violation of the Art IV, Sec 1 "Full Faith and Credit" clause).

Tree, That particular legislation is outdated, only extending to 1992. According to Wikipedia - Matthew Shepard: Dak, Dak, would you have any objection to two people getting divorced or remarrying other people? You probably dont find anything unusual about this, but the bible condemns this. Do you find any objections to a theists marrying a non-theist? You should, because the bible condemns this. Do you find any objections to people marrying who have had kids out of wedlock? You should, because the bible condemns this. How do you feel about the fact the church sanctified same-sex marriages in the 4th century? Or how about the fact polygamous marriages were part of Jewish tradition for hundreds of years? The basic point is that no one cares what the bible has to say about marriage unless the bible says something that agrees with their prejudices. The fact there are no groups dedicated to defending what the bible actually says about marriage, and instead single out gay marriage as unholy and evil is evidence of prejudice, not a committment to godly values. Demosthenes, Because the motivation is irrational. If someone isnt a bigot for being disgusted by certain behavior for non-rational reasons, what are they?

Minutes ago, I came across some of the most vile, hateful things I'd ever seen in my life - people absolutely cheering for the torture and murder of Matthew Sheppard, and saying they would feel no remorse if even more gays were tortured and murdered. I hear this all the time from the conservative people I know. These people enthusiastically defend their hatefulness in the name of God, where they claim that homosexuality is unnatural and evil because its condemned in Leviticus and Romans. However, divorce is condemned just as harshly, but almost no one claims that divorce is unnatural and evil - these kinds of contradictions makes it obvious that anti-gay movement is motivated by irrational prejudice and the bible is nothing but a red-herring. I dont believe anti-gay legislation has anything to do with morality, nor anything to do with god - its pure irrational bigotry. People oppose any legislation to raise gays from second-class citizenship, because they despise gays. They hate gays, they consider gays nothing more than disgusting perverts - the most unfortunate part is that these are the mainstream attitudes. Among other things, some of the most striking things I've seen have been year after year the house majority republicans voting down expansion of hate crime legislation to include sexual-orientation, the disapproval of gays participating in the military, the hot-button issue of redefining marriage to exclude homosexuals, disapproval of gays adopting children, and more. I am firmly convinced that years from now, the homophobes of today are going to be looked upon in the same light as anti-semites and racists of 50 years ago. So thats my rant, I feel a little better to get it off my chest. It still makes me very sad

So, life for human beings right around the age of 4 or 5 years old, you say?

That's what we call a paradox Of course! There could be other reasons, but I've never I've never given thought to the "unusual" part until this thread

Dak, A few different reasons I can think of for prohibiting the unusual part: 1) Punitive or rehabilitative value - most people think of unusual punishment in the form of some kind of public humiliation (such as tarring and feathering), but it isnt obvious if these things have any rehabilitative value. 2) Equal treatment - very very important in law is that everyone be treated fairly and equally. Allowing for unusual punishments introduces an element where people are treated differently for same crime, for instance someone might be branded with a scarlet A, another person could be forced to eat rotten food, someone else could tarred and feathered, all for committing the same offense. (Its practically impossible tailor all of these different punishments to fit the same crime - or at least I've never come across a way to measure somethings "punishing value".) Philosophically, equal treatment is an important component to what we think of as justice. 3) Due process - allowing for unusual punishment makes it very easy to discriminate against certain groups (almost always, the groups discriminated against will be racial minorities, religious minorities, gays, and atheists). For instance, it isnt difficult to imagine at all that a particular judge could choose to simply fine members of the church, but choose to severely humiliate non-members as he sees fit. 4) Separation of powers - the things that define crimes and punishments for these crimes are made by Congress, not by judges. Giving judges the power be creative in prescribing punishment is simply too much power in their hands.

Thomas, I cant make any sense out of your post. What are you trying to say?

The guy did commit a sex offense, see post #4.

Retributive justice is all about correcting the balance between certain injustices. However, retributive justice theories dont make sense in light of the fact we punish certain crimes like prostitution, littering, tax evasion, reckless endangerment of your own life, etc which exist apart from being an actual injustice upon anyone. But lets not get started on the differences between retributive justice and corrective justice