What have we become?

[rigney]

Some guy in Michigan wrote this editorial and I happened to pick it up. What are your thoughts?

 

http://www.examiner.com/christianity-culture-in-fort-worth/what-has-america-become-by-ken-huber-of-tawas-city

Edited December 14, 2010 by rigney

[swansont]

I think it's a-la-carte, manufactured indignation, with lies and half-truths as a large ingredient (with no real examples and likely based on fallacious extrapolation), and a large dose of irony:

 

[W]e all support the Constitution, but only when it supports our political ideology

 

I see three examples of him not liking some first amendment rights, which are arguably tied in with an ideology.

[rigney]

I think it's a-la-carte, manufactured indignation, with lies and half-truths as a large ingredient (with no real examples and likely based on fallacious extrapolation), and a large dose of irony:

 

 

 

I see three examples of him not liking some first amendment rights, which are arguably tied in with an ideology.

 

I understand your jump at credulity, just couldn't get that much out of it myself other than the bigotry. Evidently though, the guy is pissed off about his plight in life as compared to some of the worthless leeches he's associated with. But then, all of these religious folks have an ax to grind. Edited December 14, 2010 by rigney

[A Tripolation]

I think it's a lot of false comparisons. Sure, there is porn on the internet, but there are also a lot of christian-themed websites. Comparing porn on the internet to a nativity scene in the park is fallacious.

[rigney]

I think it's a lot of false comparisons. Sure, there is porn on the internet, but there are also a lot of christian-themed websites. Comparing porn on the internet to a nativity scene in the park is fallacious.

 

No comparison! A papier mache of a baby lying in a crib with straw men standing around accompanied by some farm animals as compared to a couple straights or gays getting it on in real animation? Uh-Uh, No way. I'll take the video. Preferably, I like the chubby ones. Edited December 14, 2010 by rigney

[swansont]

I think it's a lot of false comparisons. Sure, there is porn on the internet, but there are also a lot of christian-themed websites. Comparing porn on the internet to a nativity scene in the park is fallacious.

 

Right. In the US, it's two different rights under the first amendment. Apples and oranges, and a fulfillment of only supporting the Constitution when the situation agrees with one's ideology. A-la-carte rights.

[Butters]

"we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal"

"We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work"

" in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process"

"you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer"

 

Yes. What's the problem there?

 

 

[CaptainPanic]

Yes. What's the problem there?

Allow me to help you find the problem. (Although I have a feeling that you personally don't need this explanation - perhaps it helps someone else to see the light).

 

Let's take the first two (the easiest for me as a non-American).

"we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal"

Admittedly, I am not up to date with American laws. In Europe, they still use millions of animals for testing... and I really don't know many tests done on human fetusses... although it may be necessary for some specific fields of study (stem cell research). Anyway, I think that it would be absolutely out of the question to use human fetuses for just any kind of testing (make up products like eye-liner). It's a false comparison, because the scale is different, the tests are different, and certain tests just need to be done on human cells.

 

"We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work"

In a country with unemployment, it is guaranteed that some people cannot find work. It's not a matter of searching. It's a matter of job availability.

Certainly, there are some lazy creatures that don't want to work... but it is not proven that the majority of unemployed people are content with their situation.

 

In fact, I would go as far as suggesting that there is more evidence that the unemployed people search for jobs quite hard. I conclude that from the fact that there are very few vacancies. If unemplyed people were indeed so lazy, then logically it would be a lot harder to match vacancies with employees (because those lazy unmotivated unemployed people would not cooperate, and would refuse most jobs).

 

So, we just established that "people who don't want to work" are a minority among the unemployed. Most search for jobs, and accept jobs when they find them.

 

If we then change your statement to "We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who cannot find work despite trying"... then it doesn't sound so bad anymore, does it?

 

 

 

The other two things you wrote confuse me - Where I live, there is no discussion at all.

[swansont]

"we can use a human fetus for medical research, but it is wrong to use an animal"

 

The link is unsubstantiated material, which contains lies and half-truths. The second part is a misrepresentation — some people think it's wrong to use animals for research, but their opinion is not the law. Animals are in fact used for research.

 

"We take money from those who work hard for it and give it to those who don't want to work"

 

Plenty of people (especially right now) who are getting government benefits would love to have a job. They are not lazy, they were laid off. Their jobs simply don't exist anymore.

 

" in public schools you can teach that homosexuality is OK, but you better not use the word God in the process"

 

Establishment clause. Here's an example of supporting the constitution except when one's ideology interferes.

 

"you can kill an unborn child, but it is wrong to execute a mass murderer"

 

Ironic that an article that starts off with "Thou shalt not kill" is used to advocate killing someone, and I didn't see where anyone made the argument that the sentence was arrived at because executing him would be "wrong." California has the death penalty. He made a plea agreement — that's how the system works. Life in prison probably saves the state of California money, since you avoid the cost of two trials (original and automatic appeal), plus it costs more to house death row inmates and the waiting time for execution is ~20 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-23-Death-row-time_N.htm

[Butters]

I believe you have misunderstood me, CaptainPanic. I was actually saying that I see no problem with the fact that we redistribute wealth to those who need it, or that a school teaches that being homosexual is okay etc, etc.

 

The letter was listing a lot of things which I see absolutely no problem with and in fact think are the signs of a progressive, caring society.