From Abortion to US Foriegn Policy

[Bartleby]

If you want to know where I fit in politically, I'm conservative. Not to be confused with Republicans. The framework for my political preferences is that I don't like government getting its hands into everything.

I don't like special rights or special treatment, and I couldn't care less what people are doing as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. That means I'm for g.ay marriage and g.ay adoption.
Abortion? I believe children are alive from conception, so I'm against it although I often find myself torn.
Drugs? Don't care, legalize and offer education and clinics, I don't use, but it's no different to me than booze or cigs.
Immigration? I empathize with the plight of others, but for safety's sake nobody should be allowed to enter illegally.
Education? Pay teachers, not administrators, break up the unions and actually teach the 3 R's.
Taxes? Why does the IRS code need to be so complicated and why the **** do we still collect taxes to help win WWII?
Social Programs? There are needs to be met and gov't has proven time and again that it is incapable of managing the needs of society itself. The gov't could however facilitate the meeting of these needs and with proper incentive most if not all could be met by individuals and businesses.
Environment? We live here, we need to be good stewards, but within reason people still come first.
US Foreign Policy? We are the remaining superpower, minor decisions for the US can have major impacts on others. Whatever we do, we need to tread carefully.
Military? I believe every citizen should serve a mandatory two years active duty in the military, public service does not count.
Did I support going into Iraq? Yes, Saddam should have been dealt with years ago.
Neither Bush nor Kerry stand for me as neither believe government's only job is to secure its citizens' freedoms, to protect human rights at home and abroad and to facilitate most anything else. I'm not sure who I'm voting for this year.

What are your political beliefs or for whom are you going to vote?

[Havard]

Bartleby, it sounds like you and I have quite a lot in common. BTW, check out the Cato Insititute http://www.cato.org if you haven't already. They are conservative, but more libertarian than mainline Republicans. You might like their policies.

[Essex]

yeah taht sounds more Libertarian than conservative.

The only thing that stood out at me was the two year mandatory service in the military because the military is not for everyone as much as it'd be nice if we could all do it there is no way I could do the military. I think anyone who knows me would agree, hell even you guys here would have to agree.

I like the support for *** marriage though :) thanks

[SaroDarksbane]

If you want to know where I fit in politically, I'm conservative. Not to be confused with Republicans. The framework for my political preferences is that I don't like government getting its hands into everything.

I don't like special rights or special treatment, and I couldn't care less what people are doing as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. That means I'm for g.ay marriage and g.ay adoption.
Abortion? I believe children are alive from conception, so I'm against it although I often find myself torn.
Drugs? Don't care, legalize and offer education and clinics, I don't use, but it's no different to me than booze or cigs.
Immigration? I empathize with the plight of others, but for safety's sake nobody should be allowed to enter illegally.
Education? Pay teachers, not administrators, break up the unions and actually teach the 3 R's.
Taxes? Why does the IRS code need to be so complicated and why the **** do we still collect taxes to help win WWII?
Social Programs? There are needs to be met and gov't has proven time and again that it is incapable of managing the needs of society itself. The gov't could however facilitate the meeting of these needs and with proper incentive most if not all could be met by individuals and businesses.
Environment? We live here, we need to be good stewards, but within reason people still come first.
US Foreign Policy? We are the remaining superpower, minor decisions for the US can have major impacts on others. Whatever we do, we need to tread carefully.
Military? I believe every citizen should serve a mandatory two years active duty in the military, public service does not count.
Did I support going into Iraq? Yes, Saddam should have been dealt with years ago.
Neither Bush nor Kerry stand for me as neither believe government's only job is to secure its citizens' freedoms, to protect human rights at home and abroad and to facilitate most anything else. I'm not sure who I'm voting for this year.

What are your political beliefs or for whom are you going to vote?
That's pretty much my feeling on things, too. I would also add:

Death Penalty? The state doesn't have the right to execute people under it's care. It's not a deterent, it's not cheaper for the state, it's prone to error, it's irreversable, and frankly, it lets some of those prisoners off the hook too easily.

[Sage the Mage]

1 Same.
2 Don't really care. I'd allow it as a form of population control really.
3 Ban the heavy drugs.
4 No illegal immigrants.
5 I'm not a fan of breaking up unions, but edumication neds 2 be fixd
6 Taxes should be there, and actually raised when necessary. Obviously they would be lower in a weaker government than a strong one but they still need to exist.
7 Social programs. The government CAN be efficent when it knows what to do. Just giving a broad goal is a no no.
8 Pro-enviroment
9 I'm liberal on the international level. Institutions are a good thing.
10 Military, I don't support any mandatory service unless there's a dire need. Ex: Being attacked by another country? Yes. Attacking too many countries at once? No. Peacekeeping should be done within the confines of the int'l system.
11 Saddam needed to be removed. However that was not the reason given for war, and thus why I disagree with it now.

Here's a new one:
Economy: I detest outsourcing as it is right now.
I'd be sorta protectionist here. Tariffs on countries where we outsource jobs to until their standards of living increase to a level.

[Bartleby]

Yeah, the death penalty is a tough one for me. I agree, it's not a deterent and my fear is that just one innocent person might lose their life, but I didn't know it's more expensive. Do you have any links to information on this? What would you consider an adequate punishment for truly horrid crimes?

Oh yeah and if anyone has a gripe with one, some or all of my positions I'd like to hear why, we'll both likely end up learning something we didn't know.

[Bartleby]

Outsourcing? This one is going to make me unpopular, but I'm all for it. I empathize with programmers losing their jobs, my field, accounting (tax work) is also beginning to be outsourced and the trend will continue. Other fields will experience this outsourcing as well, but I think it's a good thing. This will stimulate the economies of now third world countries and will speed the improvement of their lifestyle and I believe it will open up room for small to medium sized business to fill. The global corporations are finally starting to fulfill the promise of improving the countries they are in. This is not to say these companies operate even handedly with their hosts, but in time the countries will be able to force them to play fair. Aside from that the citizens of these nations are finally seeing a way out of their cast systems through education and work. This is so new that who knows how it will all turn out, but I really think this will be an opportunity for those countries that were left in the dust (economically) to close the gap.

[Xaf]

Outsourcing? This one is going to make me unpopular, but I'm all for it. I empathize with programmers losing their jobs, my field, accounting (tax work) is also beginning to be outsourced and the trend will continue. Other fields will experience this outsourcing as well, but I think it's a good thing. This will stimulate the economies of now third world countries and will speed the improvement of their lifestyle and I believe it will open up room for small to medium sized business to fill. The global corporations are finally starting to fulfill the promise of improving the countries they are in. This is not to say these companies operate even handedly with their hosts, but in time the countries will be able to force them to play fair. Aside from that the citizens of these nations are finally seeing a way out of their cast systems through education and work. This is so new that who knows how it will all turn out, but I really think this will be an opportunity for those countries that were left in the dust (economically) to close the gap.
I agree completely, we are finally sending some decent jobs over seas instead of just slave labor. Maybe a sort of comeuppance for how we have benefited from all the explotations of cheap foreign labor. They are people too, and im sure need the jobs just as much if not more than people over here do. And by stimulating their economys with decent paying jobs it could benfit us all in the end.

[SaroDarksbane]

Do you have any links to information on this? What would you consider an adequate punishment for truly horrid crimes?
Simple. Death Penalty cases are an automatic appeal. Trials cost lots and lots of money, and take a long time. And you can't just not let them appeal, this is death we're talking about. So in the end, it's just cheaper to keep 'em alive, and you don't have all the other negatives associated with murdering someone in the state's care.

Adequate punishment? Make em breaks rocks 8 hours a day for the next 50 years. Now that's a detterant.

[Bartleby]

I believe they already of manual labor programs in most prisons. I don't think people break rocks anymore though :scratch:

Personally, I'd like to see a more rehabilitative approach as I see it in the best interest of all of society. Get the non-violent druggies and dealers out of prison and offer state run mandatory and facilitate not for profit non mandatory rehab clinics for the substance addicted along with facilitating education programs vocational or otherwise to enable them find another path. A determination could be made and reviewed at regular intervals about a prisoner's ability to be rehabilitated and education programs should follow for those that can be.

I also think prison should be a mix of state run institutions for violent offenders and private not for profit run institutions for non violent and white collar crimes.

[Havard]

I believe they already of manual labor programs in most prisons. I don't think people break rocks anymore though :scratch:

Personally, I'd like to see a more rehabilitative approach as I see it in the best interest of all of society. Get the non-violent druggies and dealers out of prison and offer state run mandatory and facilitate not for profit non mandatory rehab clinics for the substance addicted along with facilitating education programs vocational or otherwise to enable them find another path. A determination could be made and reviewed at regular intervals about a prisoner's ability to be rehabilitated and education programs should follow for those that can be.

I also think prison should be a mix of state run institutions for violent offenders and private not for profit run institutions for non violent and white collar crimes.

I think drug-dealers should be forced to do some work, and have all the proceeds go to the care of crack-babies and abandoned children. I consider drug dealers to be violent criminals. :rant:

[Eiger]

Yeah, the death penalty is a tough one for me. I agree, it's not a deterent and my fear is that just one innocent person might lose their life, but I didn't know it's more expensive. Do you have any links to information on this? What would you consider an adequate punishment for truly horrid crimes?

Oh yeah and if anyone has a gripe with one, some or all of my positions I'd like to hear why, we'll both likely end up learning something we didn't know.
Ya, Sage is correct on this one. It's pretty well known that the death penalty is the most expensive (to the taxpayer) way to go - mostly because of the appeals process. I'm sure you'll find plenty of links with a quick yahoo or google search. Another problem is that a lot of these folks get a crappy court appointed attorney and a crappy defense which has led to more than a few innocents on death row - Illinois recently recognized a major problem with this.

Personally, I feel that a death sentence is the easy way out and that wasting away in prison for life is a far harsher sentence. Just my opinion though based on that if I committed a nasty, I'd prefer the death sentence for my penance.

There are still a few places where they do rock breaking, though far fewer than 75 years ago.

[Essex]

i agree with most of bart's views on prison drug related cases should not be in prison where drug abuse is much more rampant (if Oz taught me anything lol)

only the most violent criminals should be in what we consider a normal prison and those prisons should be focused on strict psychological study and rehabilitation.

we have the largest amount of people in prison per capta do we not? Or did I hear that wrong

[Dementor]

I caution against g-y marriage on a purely sociological, but at the same time realize that they need the same rights as everyone else. "I'm for civil Unions" is the simple answer
While I could never take part in facilitcating an abortion, it's not the buisness of the government, in my opinion. If people want to kill their children, let them, more room in the gene pool for my kids.
Keep drugs illegal and enforce the bans with military power in countrys that comply with the cartels. I lost a good friend to that sh*t and I have no patience for it.
Immigration... meh. America needs laborers. That sounds cold, but it's just the truth.
We need a serious overhaul in how we think about education. Right now it's a massive babysitting service and a way to keep young people out of the workforce.
Taxes... who likes taxes? I don't lose any sleep over taxes.
Social programs... they seem fine to me, but then again I don't use any really. Again, no sleep lost.
Agreed, humans first.
Foreign Policy; Wether we like it or not, we are Rome, and all that that implies.
Agreed, maditory service. Essex, the military is damn good at shaping doughboys into something it can use. Two years of boot camp would be good for you (or me, for that matter).
Iraq? Meh... time will tell. It'll either be a HUGE sucess or a HUGE failure.


Neither Bush nor Kerry stand for me as neither believe government's only job is to secure its citizens' freedoms, to protect human rights at home and abroad and to facilitate most anything else. I'm not sure who I'm voting for this year.

What are your political beliefs or for whom are you going to vote?[/QUOTE]

[Essex]

ah dementor I don't mean my weight (which ya know I do laugh when you poke me in the stomach but doughboy hurts) lol

I mean the mentality that goes with the military, I'm not that guy, I'm not the person who can go out there and shoot a man and not think twice about it. I'm not violent and I try to distance myself from people who are.

The military would have to become a much nicer and gentler place before I could go and really don't see that happening.

[Dementor]

ah dementor I don't mean my weight (which ya know I do laugh when you poke me in the stomach but doughboy hurts) lol

I mean the mentality that goes with the military, I'm not that guy, I'm not the person who can go out there and shoot a man and not think twice about it. I'm not violent and I try to distance myself from people who are.

The military would have to become a much nicer and gentler place before I could go and really don't see that happening.

You implying that I'm a violent person?

Are you?

ARE YOU?

BECAUSE IF YOU ARE I'M GOING TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU!

[Bartleby]

To be fair Essex, how would you know what the mentality of the military as a whole or the average serviceman (gender neutral) is without ever having been? All you get to see is the news that's "fit to print" :uhhuh:

I am not much better, but I have a close friend, a brother, a sister, grandparents and uncles that entered and completed military service and/or tours of duty. So my sources are a little closer to home and don't require any spin to get air time.

To be honest I think we all need a healthy dose of understanding for what our military does (and shouldn't do) and appreciation for it. It needs to be our military, not the government's military, that way people get personally involved and feel personally responsible for the protection of our rights and the violation of others' rights.

We also need to demistify guns and other weapons. Seeing young adults ages 15-25 buy all manner of swords and guns (airsoft or otherwise) disturbs me. They really don't get it.

[Eiger]

we have the largest amount of people in prison per capta do we not? Or did I hear that wrong
Ya, by far worldwide. I just saw some stats on that last week. Something like 7,000+ per 100,000 vs. Canada's 1,000+. I don't know if I got the decimal in the right place, but the proportion comparison US to Canada is correct.

[Bartleby]

It's because they stick all the wackos in Quebec or Newfoundland :bonk:

[Eiger]

Ok, I might as well wade in:


I couldn't care less what people are doing as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. That means I'm for g.ay marriage and g.ay adoption.
Affirmative Action I support - but before you start in on that here, I suggest you save it for the affirmative action thread I'm going to start later today.
Abortion: Through the first trimester is ok, but not afterward.
Drugs: legalize them and tax them to provide treatment programs. My main deal is that prohibition doesn't work just as it didn't in the 1920's with alcohol. Prices should be kept under black market rates and drugs should be available at state stores. This will reduce the tax $ we spend on prisons (which is a LOT and drug enforcement police - allowing them to concentrate on more important crimes. The drug war ain't working - it's time for a new strategy.
Immigration: That's a toughie - my wife just immigrated from Canada... However, in the end I don't want the US to be like China with over a billion people. I love the open spaces, etc. Besides, more people and a limited housing stock and our current planning strategy of urban sprawl just doesn't bode well for housing costs. A few things need to change here.
Education: Well I wouldn't break up the unions, as teachers still don't get paid enough. If we paid more, the good ones would stick around. So many teachers don't end their careers as teachers... But the schools are over burdened with too much social issues to deal with. So a back to basics approach is always good. Though I don't like charter schools or vouchers. I think more people need to focus on improving the schools we got. If we let the cream of the crop leave, we'll get left with a permanent underclass that no one cares about. That's it in a nutshell...
Taxes: No one likes taxes, but we gotta pay them. The progressive tax structure is the fairest and I don't favor getting rid of capital gains and other taxes that benefit primarily the rich. Inheritance taxes I don't much like, but do like the idea seeing the trust fund kids get a job, hehe.
Social Programs: We are the richest nation in the world. While we can't make everyone be productive, doing our best to create opportunities for those who want to be productive needs to happen. Having a ton of poor kids out there not getting proper nutrition, etc is just inexcusable. Having people without health care is inexcusable. Charities alone will not solve this problem - that's largely what existed until the programs started and it didn't work.
Environment: People come first in most environmental policies - clean air, clean water, NEPA, etc etc. Anyone against those things? Endangered Species is one that doesn't, but it can be argued that we shouldn't push species to extinction - forget the snail darter for a moment and focus on the bigger ones like the bald eagle... and BTW - the spotted owl was a scapegoat for much bigger happenings in the timber industry like job exportation, raw log exportation, unwillingness to upgrade to current technology, etc. (I did a lot of work on this particular issue in grad school)
US Foreign Policy: Walk softly, carry big stick, use it only when necessary, make friends not enemies if possible, usual stuff really.
Military: I'm on the fence on mandatory duty - I know I would've hated it not being in love with authority and all. But it has its benefits. I do think we need a coherent military policy for the new century though.
Iraq: Bring our troops home asap.

[Mastgrr]

Problem with all the people in the prisons is that we focus on punishment, not prevention...

[Sage the Mage]

Outsourcing? This one is going to make me unpopular, but I'm all for it. I empathize with programmers losing their jobs, my field, accounting (tax work) is also beginning to be outsourced and the trend will continue. Other fields will experience this outsourcing as well, but I think it's a good thing. This will stimulate the economies of now third world countries and will speed the improvement of their lifestyle and I believe it will open up room for small to medium sized business to fill. The global corporations are finally starting to fulfill the promise of improving the countries they are in. This is not to say these companies operate even handedly with their hosts, but in time the countries will be able to force them to play fair. Aside from that the citizens of these nations are finally seeing a way out of their cast systems through education and work. This is so new that who knows how it will all turn out, but I really think this will be an opportunity for those countries that were left in the dust (economically) to close the gap.


Yeah basically outsourcing can improve those societies, but its not going to really happen unless you encourage it. Losing a job to a guy who gets paid around the same amount is one thing. Losing a job to a guy who gets paid a 1/10th of it is another.

Ya, Sage is correct on this one.
Yes I am, unfortunately, you aren't talking about me here though.

[Eiger]

Yes I am, unfortunately, you aren't talking about me here though.
As my wife would say, "oopsie".

[Bartleby]

I'm a bit surprised that as an accountant I didn't really clarify my position on taxes very well. Let me try again:

I am for federal, state and local taxation. Guiding forces need predictable cash flow to support sustainable growth and development as well as provide services that only the government should provide.
I am in favor of a viable form of the negative tax in lieu of welfare, but I just can't see how it would work until the median income moves much further from the poverty line, which has not happened for a long time.
I am for a progressive federal tax, because in most states, the state tax is very regressive so it kind of works out to be a flat-tax.
I am for capital gains tax and an estate tax, but the I'd like to see the middle class and below sheltered from said taxes.
I am against the complexity of the tax code, because it only benefits those businesses and individuals with enough money to pay high-end tax attorneys to help them legally avoid paying taxes. If you weren't aware, most IRS agents and auditors know little about the tax code they supposedly enforce.
I am for the support of the entrepreneur through favorable tax treatment.
I think that about covers it.

[Eiger]

I'm a bit surprised that as an accountant I didn't really clarify my position on taxes very well. Let me try again:

I am for federal, state and local taxation. Guiding forces need predictable cash flow to support sustainable growth and development as well as provide services that only the government should provide.
I am in favor of a viable form of the negative tax in lieu of welfare, but I just can't see how it would work until the median income moves much further from the poverty line, which has not happened for a long time.
I am for a progressive federal tax, because in most states, the state tax is very regressive so it kind of works out to be a flat-tax.
I am for capital gains tax and an estate tax, but the I'd like to see the middle class and below sheltered from said taxes.
I am against the complexity of the tax code, because it only benefits those businesses and individuals with enough money to pay high-end tax attorneys to help them legally avoid paying taxes. If you weren't aware, most IRS agents and auditors know little about the tax code they supposedly enforce.
I am for the support of the entrepreneur through favorable tax treatment.
I think that about covers it.
We're fairly well in sync - a few comments:

1) Yup, but I suspect we disagree on some privatization issues

2) I could be wrong, but I think the poverty line is somewhere around 17+K and median income around 35 or so K - could be real wrong though cuz this is from memory - feel free to correct. You've got a point since folks making around 35K aren't paying much and 17 K aren't paying nearly anything I suspect. Problem is most welfare is AFDC - Aid to Families with Dependent Children and the food stamp program. Of course you could expand that definition quite a bit to include some SS benefits, school programs like Head Start, Medicare and Medicaid, though they also have their own tax source. Hard to know where to draw the line... There are some negative tax benefits (credits) but I'm not remembering them - I'm sure you know the mechanics of this stuff better than I.

3) Same here - but I just hate regressive taxes in general - especially the sales tax. Washington has about the worst tax system around - property and sales with no income tax. Very nice if you're rich and sucks to be poor. Great incentive for internet shopping though at 9.1%, hehe. Poor businesses get the B & O tax - based on revenues rather than profits. Great way to attract new businesses - NOT.

4, 5, and 6) Heartily agreed

[Bartleby]

1) I can almost guarantee we disagree on some privatization issues :)

2) I believe the 35k may have been a household or family of 4 figure, where as I'm referring to individuals for which the median is closer to 20K back in 2000 (I assume you're referring to the big 2000 census)

The poverty line for a family of four may have been 17k but the floor for individuals was around 10k (again I had only paid attention to individual figures because I was single at that time)

10-15k difference between the median and poverty sounds like a sizeable difference but it really isn't and it ends up missing the real issue. The problem with comparing a nationwide median income v a nationwide poverty line is that those in urban cities like LA or NY where the cost of living is much greater the comparison doesn't show the true poverty for that location. 20-25k in LA will just about cover your rent, but forget about utilities or food. Although it might be comfortable in a less urbanized area.

The problem with the NIT as I see it is that if the median income and the poverty line are too close for a geographical area, then any attempt to bring someone up to just above the poverty line will create a huge disincentive to work.

3)I am not up to speed on Washington tax policy, but revenues not profits? Sounds like they don't even bother lubing up before they stick it to entrepreneurs. And unless the state gov't requires little funding their tax structure is going to crush their middle and lower classes.

To clarify my opinion on the estate tax, I'm in favor of it because in my mind, the only individuals that would object to it are those that don't intend to give back to the nation that has provided basic framework for their success. You can't take it with you when you die and to be honest your progeny can have tax free $100,000+/yr adjusted for inflation for around $2 million dollars per child. Let junior find his own path, and they'll have a 100,000/yr cushion to keep them comfortable.

[Eiger]

1) I can almost guarantee we disagree on some privatization issues :)

2) I believe the 35k may have been a household or family of 4 figure, where as I'm referring to individuals for which the median is closer to 20K back in 2000 (I assume you're referring to the big 2000 census)

The poverty line for a family of four may have been 17k but the floor for individuals was around 10k (again I had only paid attention to individual figures because I was single at that time)

10-15k difference between the median and poverty sounds like a sizeable difference but it really isn't and it ends up missing the real issue. The problem with comparing a nationwide median income v a nationwide poverty line is that those in urban cities like LA or NY where the cost of living is much greater the comparison doesn't show the true poverty for that location. 20-25k in LA will just about cover your rent, but forget about utilities or food. Although it might be comfortable in a less urbanized area.

The problem with the NIT as I see it is that if the median income and the poverty line are too close for a geographical area, then any attempt to bring someone up to just above the poverty line will create a huge disincentive to work.

3)I am not up to speed on Washington tax policy, but revenues not profits? Sounds like they don't even bother lubing up before they stick it to entrepreneurs. And unless the state gov't requires little funding their tax structure is going to crush their middle and lower classes.

To clarify my opinion on the estate tax, I'm in favor of it because in my mind, the only individuals that would object to it are those that don't intend to give back to the nation that has provided basic framework for their success. You can't take it with you when you die and to be honest your progeny can have tax free $100,000+/yr adjusted for inflation for around $2 million dollars per child. Let junior find his own path, and they'll have a 100,000/yr cushion to keep them comfortable.
1) LOL

2) Ya, it was definitely based on family of four as I had to do some immigration worksheets for my wife a couple years ago. Not sure what year it was for though. I agree with your analysis and results. Incentive is key. (for example, nothing annoys me more than people choosing to stay on welfare to keep their med benefits because working will provide too much income to stay on, but not enough to pay for their own bennies, not like anyone can blame them, that's a smart decision given their circumstances - but this needs to be fixed this to help them move off welfare - more total income from working, but still keep med benefits until income reaches x or some other).

3) Ya, I'm not kidding. It doesn't really kick in until you have revenues of $135K, but anyone having a business that provides a decent income will reach that. There's not a business in the state that likes it. I was listening to NPR today and a long interview with a gubernatorial candidate who wants to overhaul the tax system. He's got good ideas, but they'll kill him in the end, unfortunately.

As for the estate tax - I'm with you all the way. That's a good way to think about it.

[Bartleby]

With conservative projections my own little business would break 135K in revenue the first year alone. Is there an exemption for retailers? I figure they and highly skilled labor intensive businesses would have the hardest time.

Would you believe I actually listen to NPR? 'Tis true, 'tis true... though I listen to Rush too :)

[the_guse]

I suppose i should jump in on this as well. i would consider myself a social liberal, but a fiscal conservative.

*** marrage I think everyone has a right to be as misserable as me.
Abortion Most of you know that i have a 10 year-old son. not all of you know that i am 28 years old. My wife (gf at the time) got pregnant when i was only 17. we were faced with the choice of an abortion. we chose life. the key word there is "chose". it was the hardest, and best decision i have made in my life. i guess you can say im pro-choce but not pro-abortion. some of you might not understand that, but it makes perfect sence to me.
drugs i really could care less what you do to yourself, as long as you do it away from me, and my family.
Immigration i have no problem with leagle immigrants. it's the illeagle ones that i have trouble with. many ppl dislike bush, but he did do 1 good thing that i like; he gave a chance for all the illeagle immigrants to walk the right path, at the very least get stay in america leagally. -- dont get me wrong, im not trying to make a saint out of a sinner. it was only 1 good thing.
education ask any graduating senior from high school if they can balance a check book. ask any graduating senior from collage (non-business grads) the differance between a mutual fund and equities. i thought schools were supposed to teach us about how to live in our society. serious overhaul is needed.
taxes i dont have much of a problem with the taxes we have now. over the past few years the tax cuts have helpped me greatly. my problem is with the gov spending. first and foremost, grants given for research that then became a patant where someone made a fukton of money, and the government didnt see a penny of. this is essp true in phareceuticals. the gov needs to stop thinking like a charity for businesses, and it needs to start thinking like a business itself. those grants should be more of an investment. we are talking hundreds of billions of dollars, where the government should at the very least, see a return in thier investment. i wish i had a link to back this up, but im sure money made from patents that were funded by government grants (not the cost of grants themselves) could very well pay for our heath care system we need badly.
social programs some are good, some were designed by morons. take the welfare system. it shouldnt be a handout for the poor. it should be about job training. the unemplyment system and welfare should combine together. in fact, i think the government and businesses should combine them to create a national system of human resources, and welfare.
enviorment make it cost effective. my business now recycles all of the cardboard it recieves, and all of the cardboard that 3 other businesses nearby recieves because it saves us money. we have yet to find a way to recycle plastic and office paper in a cost effective manner. if there was a way to save us money doing it, we would. this guy has the right idea: http://www.discover.com/issues/jul-04/features/anything-into-oil/
US Foreign Policy i love what yale and harvard are doing now. its a requirement to have a passport if you want to attend those schools. considering thier students are the future of this country, getting hands on knowledge from abroad is, and should be a requirement for all.
millitary manditory millitary service. im really on the fence about this one. i feel it is important for every parent to teach thier children discipline, and responsibility. there is no greater tool for that than the millitary. i would be incredably proud if my son joined when he is of age. -- scared, but proud. But at the same time i would have trouble accepting a millitary that defends freedom if the very freedom of it's personnel is violated by forcing them to join.
Iraq i supported it, but i am very dissapointed with post war handling. so dissapointed, i feel it has become an embarrisment to our nation.

[Essex]

you mean there is a little guse?

the profecy has been fulfilled... now we await the apocalpyse :) joke

I had no idea you had a kid, very hard choice that you had to make as a young man.

[Bhs Crew]

i guess you can say im pro-choce but not pro-abortion. some of you might not understand that, but it makes perfect sence to me.

Almost everyone that I've talked to or heard who is pro-choice is not pro abortion. It seems to be the norm for pro-choicers.

[the_guse]

Almost everyone that I've talked to or heard who is pro-choice is not pro abortion. It seems to be the norm for pro-choicers.

thats true, but it seems most ppl who are pro-life believe that being pro-choice meens being pro-abortion. i could never ask Dawn to have an abortion, no matter what the situation. i couldnt live with myself. but just having that choice there seemed to me at the time, comforting.
--i guess knowing that there was a back door, and a way out of that huge mess, but deciding to step forward and face the mistake that i made head on gave me pride. it's better than being forced into a decision by not having a choice, even if you plan on making the choice that you would of been forced to take if the laws were differant. does that make any sence to you?

[Leon[fp]]

pro-life

I have to laugh everytime I hear or see that word. In the word of Bill Hicks: "If you're pro-life, then what does that make me? Oh, and if you're so pro-life, don't destroy abortion clinics - lock arms and block cemeteries. Let's see how committed you are to your little premise."

(quote isn't exact)

[Eiger]

With conservative projections my own little business would break 135K in revenue the first year alone. Is there an exemption for retailers? I figure they and highly skilled labor intensive businesses would have the hardest time.

Would you believe I actually listen to NPR? 'Tis true, 'tis true... though I listen to Rush too :)
No exemption for retailers. I did a little hobby business selling books on ebay for about a year and a half just for fun - that's how I learned a lot of this. It'll come in handy before long though with my next business.

Ya, I believe you listen to NPR. Did you know that there was a study (I posted about it before the forum crash) which found that NPR listeners are more likely to better understand issues (by answering questions correctly) than listeners of other news programs? So you're in good company. :clap:

Sorry to hear about the Rush doodoo though... :grrr:

[Eiger]

I suppose i should jump in on this as well...
Damn guse - that's about the best post you've ever done. Thank you.

PS, while I don't agree with everything, I do agree with much of what you said - especially on taxes - that's a real pet peeve of mine.

[Bartleby]

Rush, like NPR is not doodoo (although I have found Rush to be more entertaining, he's got showmanship for sure) Where else am I going to get some balance and counter opinions?

[Eiger]

Rush, like NPR is not doodoo (although I have found Rush to be more entertaining, he's got showmanship for sure) Where else am I going to get some balance and counter opinions?
Unfortunately, Rush is pure propaganda, he doesn't provided a balanced perspective - that is both sides of the story and then show why his is best. NPR balances their commentary to a fault. Drives me nuts when they put in the dissenting opinion even when it has little value to add to the story. But they have to keep Congress reasonably happy so they don't pull any more of their budget (Newt cut their federal funding by like 60% back in the 90's if I recall correctly - scared the crap out of them). Rush has no such concerns...

There's plenty of more reputable conservative leaning publications out there which provide a more balanced perspective than Rush. While I wish there were a shortage, there ain't. hehe :lol:

[the_guse]

No exemption for retailers. I did a little hobby business selling books on ebay for about a year and a half just for fun - that's how I learned a lot of this. It'll come in handy before long though with my next business.

Ya, I believe you listen to NPR. Did you know that there was a study (I posted about it before the forum crash) which found that NPR listeners are more likely to better understand issues (by answering questions correctly) than listeners of other news programs? So you're in good company. :clap:

Sorry to hear about the Rush doodoo though... :grrr:

i listen to both howard stern and NPR. what does that make me, a well informed moron? :)

[Eiger]

i listen to both howard stern and NPR. what does that make me, a well informed moron? :)
Well, uh, umm, ok. hehe. I watch him every once in a while - cracks me up. Though I get bored of it pretty quickly.

[Bartleby]

Impression of Eiger listening to Howard Stern:

Boobies woohoo!!! :jig:

Okay I'm over it. :yawn:

[Havard]

There's plenty of more reputable conservative leaning publications out there which provide a more balanced perspective than Rush. While I wish there were a shortage, there ain't. hehe :lol:

For a Rush alternative, I'd go with O'Reilly. He's conservative, but he's critical of both Republicans and Democrats... basically anyone who "isn't looking out for you." :lol:

There are much better conservative writers, but for talk show hosts, he's my suggestion.

[Eiger]

Impression of Eiger listening to Howard Stern:

Boobies woohoo!!! :jig:

Okay I'm over it. :yawn:
That's reasonably accurate, hehe. :lol:

[Eiger]

Edit: Double post - darn forum database errors....

[Leon[fp]]

Immigration i have no problem with leagle immigrants. it's the illeagle ones that i have trouble with. many ppl dislike bush, but he did do 1 good thing that i like; he gave a chance for all the illeagle immigrants to walk the right path, at the very least get stay in america leagally. -- dont get me wrong, im not trying to make a saint out of a sinner. it was only 1 good thing.

I don't know much about the situation with legal and illegal immigrants in the US, but you should ask yourself, why are those illegal immigrants termed illegal in the US, what is their situation now (meaning income, social status etc.) and why have they come to the US even illegally. I can't imagine anyone wants to go to a country where one has a inferior social and economic position and the danger of being caught by police, the hatred of locals etcetera without having a very good reason. What is that reason and how much is the US doing to help them?

education ask any graduating senior from high school if they can balance a check book. ask any graduating senior from collage (non-business grads) the differance between a mutual fund and equities. i thought schools were supposed to teach us about how to live in our society. serious overhaul is needed.

US High Schools generally lag behind most high schools in Western Europe. But why has this happened? I mean, the education system has been in the hands of government and since the government is a democractic one it means the public wanted this to happen to the high schools. At least, that statement would be true if the US democracy is a real, transparent and open democracy. My guess is that it's not. The leading parties are either incompetent or they serve other interests than the general interest.

[Eiger]

']US High Schools generally lag behind most high schools in Western Europe. But why has this happened? I mean, the education system has been in the hands of government and since the government is a democractic one it means the public wanted this to happen to the high schools. At least, that statement would be true if the US democracy is a real, transparent and open democracy. My guess is that it's not. The leading parties are either incompetent or they serve other interests than the general interest.
It comes down to that we don't want to pay higher taxes to improve our schools. We aren't willing to tax ourselves to as high a level as many European countries. Additionally, we have a lot of private and parochial schools and many folks who send their kids there don't want to "pay for education twice". And then there's the issue of quality in all schools vs. the one that your kid actually goes to. The bottom line is that we have a philosophy of individuals are more important than the community and thus me and mine first and the heck with everyone else. That's a gross generalization of course, and should be seen as such, but those that do think that way have a tremendous effect on our system.

[Bartleby]

Illegal immigrants come into the United States because their government (take Mexico for example) has a vested interest in not the conditions of the majority of it's people. Why would the mexican government want to spend all the money that is necessary to provide the jobs, services and infrastracture that would improve the quality of life for it's people? Do you think that money would come from the pockets of Mexico's wealthy aristocrats who are de facto owners of the government? No, it's much cheaper to leave their people so destitute that members of a family are willing to risk their lives and leave loved ones behind for substandard pay, poor housing and menial work. Although relative to those they left behind this is a considerable improvement. And any extra money that is earned is sent home and out of the US economy. It's a win-win for Mexico. They don't have to provide basic services and foreign money flows into their economy for nothing. I emphathize with their plight, but this has got to stop. We can't let people sneak into our country, it's too dangerous. It's time for the Mexican government to take some responsibility for the welfare of all it's people.

And as far as improving schools is concerned, most taxpayers have learned that increasing spending on school only means more "misplaced" (read stolen) funds and that just mindlessly throwing money at the problem hasn't helped. When the largest CPA firm in the world uncovers cannot track down where the money is being syphoned off or how a dollar makes it into a class room, there is a serious problem. Lot's of money + no accountability = recipe for disaster. However, this is not to say that mindlessly cutting education (the current trend) is a bright idea either.

You have to understand Eiger, that if we (meaning most rational people) could trust that additional tax dollars taken in would go to schools, then I doubt you'd hear much complaint. The fact of the matter is that our education system is riddled with corruption. I'd have to be stupid to elect to willingly put more money into it, without first demanding that adequate controls are put in place.

[Essex]

Illegal immigrants come into the United States because their government (take Mexico for example) has a vested interest in not the conditions of the majority of it's people. Why would the mexican government want to spend all the money that is necessary to provide the jobs, services and infrastracture that would improve the quality of life for it's people? Do you think that money would come from the pockets of Mexico's wealthy aristocrats who are de facto owners of the government? No, it's much cheaper to leave their people so destitute that members of a family are willing to risk their lives and leave loved ones behind for substandard pay, poor housing and menial work. Although relative to those they left behind this is a considerable improvement. And any extra money that is earned is sent home and out of the US economy. It's a win-win for Mexico. They don't have to provide basic services and foreign money flows into their economy for nothing. I emphathize with their plight, but this has got to stop. We can't let people sneak into our country, it's too dangerous. It's time for the Mexican government to take some responsibility for the welfare of all it's people.

And as far as improving schools is concerned, most taxpayers have learned that increasing spending on school only means more "misplaced" (read stolen) funds and that just mindlessly throwing money at the problem hasn't helped. When the largest CPA firm in the world uncovers cannot track down where the money is being syphoned off or how a dollar makes it into a class room, there is a serious problem. Lot's of money + no accountability = recipe for disaster. However, this is not to say that mindlessly cutting education (the current trend) is a bright idea either.

You have to understand Eiger, that if we (meaning most rational people) could trust that additional tax dollars taken in would go to schools, then I doubt you'd hear much complaint. The fact of the matter is that our education system is riddled with corruption. I'd have to be stupid to elect to willingly put more money into it, without first demanding that adequate controls are put in place.
bart you also have to understand that most people don't understand things the way you do.

lets face it the average american is stupid as to what is going on. All they hear is the county/state/country wants more of their money and they start freaking out. You should have been here in TN a few years ago when there was talk of an Income tax I haven't seen so many pissed off southeners since the civil rights movement.

While you are right we need to better use the money we have, don't think the reason the general public doesn't want to give it is for the reason you mentioned, its because the average person is a cheap *** hole :)

[Bhs Crew]

While you are right we need to better use the money we have, don't think the reason the general public doesn't want to give it is for the reason you mentioned, its because the average person is a cheap *** hole :)
It is also agrivating to see an increase in the amount of your hard earned money that the government takes away, often to fund various programs that you may not even agree with. I can just think of so many better ways to spend my money.

[Leon[fp]]

[color=yellowgreen]It comes down to that we don't want to pay higher taxes to improve our schools. We aren't willing to tax ourselves to as high a level as many European countries.

Well, in most European countries a lot of people live in relatively wealthy conditions even with the "high" taxes. I don't see what's the problem. Also, because of the higher taxes, people have more security; there's better health care, there's less to worry about when you got fired (that is, if you get fired, cause the employees' security is quite high), you can have a decent education without having to pay too much. Some people might find these ideas horrendous, but the result is that Europeans in general have higher satisfaction, less stress and are more productive (more security makes people more productive, as we can see in reality). Security is a basic necessity for virtually every human being. Maybe next time, when there's a vote on taxes or social security or whatever, you should think about that.

The bottom line is that we have a philosophy of individuals are more important than the community and thus me and mine first and the heck with everyone else.

But the community is comprised of all those individuals. If the community gets struck cause of some megative policy, than, in most cases, that means you get struck too. What's good for the community usually is good for you too.

[Leon[fp]]

And as far as improving schools is concerned, most taxpayers have learned that increasing spending on school only means more "misplaced" (read stolen) funds and that just mindlessly throwing money at the problem hasn't helped. When the largest CPA firm in the world uncovers cannot track down where the money is being syphoned off or how a dollar makes it into a class room, there is a serious problem. Lot's of money + no accountability = recipe for disaster. However, this is not to say that mindlessly cutting education (the current trend) is a bright idea either.

You have to understand Eiger, that if we (meaning most rational people) could trust that additional tax dollars taken in would go to schools, then I doubt you'd hear much complaint. The fact of the matter is that our education system is riddled with corruption. I'd have to be stupid to elect to willingly put more money into it, without first demanding that adequate controls are put in place.

Couldn't that be said of the other tax dollars? Why would corruption only take place in the education system? And another thing: this just shows that currently the democracy isn't working properly. No one wants to have their tax dollars be spent corruptly, so if the people were well informed and had ample opportunity to intervene/react - which HAS to be the case in a democracy - then this issue would have been solved long ago. The people responsible would have been put on trial, the system causing it would have been overhauled. Currently, it seem like you have only two choices:

1) Vote for less spending on education
2) Vote for more spending on education with all the money used for corruption

Doesn't sound like a real choice, now does it? So if you were serious about defending democracy, I'd say start at home and actively fight for more democracy.

[the_guse]

']Couldn't that be said of the other tax dollars? Why would corruption only take place in the education system? And another thing: this just shows that currently the democracy isn't working properly. No one wants to have their tax dollars be spent corruptly, so if the people were well informed and had ample opportunity to intervene/react - which HAS to be the case in a democracy - then this issue would have been solved long ago. The people responsible would have been put on trial, the system causing it would have been overhauled. Currently, it seem like you have only two choices:

1) Vote for less spending on education
2) Vote for more spending on education with all the money used for corruption

Doesn't sound like a real choice, now does it? So if you were serious about defending democracy, I'd say start at home and actively fight for more democracy.

you're right we should, and more ppl are fighing more actively these days. they problem is, like Essex said: "lets face it the average american is stupid as to what is going on. All they hear is the county/state/country wants more of their money and they start freaking out."
What it would take, is a restructuring from the ground up. somewhere along the way someone or some special intrest group would be harmed by the restructuring, and they will lobby against any form of change.
--this can be said about anything that has to do with government spending. a proposed change would taint someone's agenda, someone with clout, and they will always find a way to stop or make change to a restucture. the system is broken, i dare say beyond repair.

]I don't know much about the situation with legal and illegal immigrants in the US, but you should ask yourself, why are those illegal immigrants termed illegal in the US, what is their situation now (meaning income, social status etc.) and why have they come to the US even illegally. I can't imagine anyone wants to go to a country where one has a inferior social and economic position and the danger of being caught by police, the hatred of locals etcetera without having a very good reason. What is that reason and how much is the US doing to help them?

let me rephrase what i said earlier: I have no problems with those who want to come to america. i have problems with those that circumvent the leagle system to get here.
--a few years ago there was this law that was passed here in connecticut. it prevented immigrants from getting a drivers liscense. There were huge protests at the state capital that got a ton of press coverage. After about a day or 2, the details of the bill became public knowledge. It was supposed to stop illeagle immigrants from getting a liscense, but help and encurage leagle ones to get a liscense. the protests died down because it lost support from the public after that. you have to understand, your drivers liscense is the key to citizenship in america. with it, you can get credit, a job, property, even get registered to vote. Do you think someone who is here illeaglly should have the right to change or have sway in america's government? Think about that in terms of your country. How would you like it if thousands of americans illeaglly migrated to your country, then had the right to vote, and make changes to your government-the same as you.

[Bhs Crew]

']Well, in most European countries a lot of people live in relatively wealthy conditions even with the "high" taxes. I don't see what's the problem. Also, because of the higher taxes, people have more security; there's better health care, there's less to worry about when you got fired (that is, if you get fired, cause the employees' security is quite high), you can have a decent education without having to pay too much. Some people might find these ideas horrendous, but the result is that Europeans in general have higher satisfaction, less stress and are more productive (more security makes people more productive, as we can see in reality). Security is a basic necessity for virtually every human being. Maybe next time, when there's a vote on taxes or social security or whatever, you should think about that.
.
And here I thought freedom was a basic necessity for virtually every human being. Security is a luxury that I have to give up freedom to get.

I like somewhere in the middle. I believe it is important that the early playing field is leveled as much as possible to make up for parents. I'm all for subsidized public schools and the estate tax. However once a person grows up then they should be allowed to fail. Life is a dangerous place. You have to make smart decisions and take balanced risks.

Let's take social security. Basically I give money to the government in the hope that I will live long enough to actually get back what I put in. The problem is that I could save the money myself and get more back. I'm paying money to the government because the government thinks I'm to irresponsible to save it myself. I just don't see the advantage of letting the government manage my money when I know 100% that they are going to do a worse job of it then I am.

[Sage the Mage]

The problem with social security is how its used. Savings+Pension+Social Security was how it was originally intended. Not just Social Security.

[Leon[fp]]

And here I thought freedom was a basic necessity for virtually every human being. Security is a luxury that I have to give up freedom to get.

I don't really understand what you mean by giving up freedom. At least, I feel very free in my country. Because of better worker's rights I can demand more from companies than if I didn't had those rights, thus I have more freedom on that level. The fear of losing one's job, reducing pay etc. reduces freedom.

On other aspects of freedom, like freedom of and from religion I also feel very free. When I look at how religious the US is and how much influence all these churches or religious groups have in the Bush administration I believe that I'm more religiously free in the Netherlands than I would be in the US. We've also got things like a sort of legalized drug system, where use of soft drugs is allowed, there's *** marriage, abortion rights, you name it. We're very free :thumbsup:.

The crucial point is that making one independent from the state through less social security makes one dependent on corporations to give you what you need to live. In essence you're more and more turning towards slavery if you live in a capitalist society where there's no social security. And when you live in a democratic state, it's a bit difficult to speak about being dependent on the state, since the state is chosen by the people. A corporation is an unaccountable, undemocratic organization which means being dependent on them is much worse than being dependent on the state - a democratic state that is, since being dependent on a tyrannical state is just as bad.

Let's take social security. Basically I give money to the government in the hope that I will live long enough to actually get back what I put in. The problem is that I could save the money myself and get more back. I'm paying money to the government because the government thinks I'm to irresponsible to save it myself. I just don't see the advantage of letting the government manage my money when I know 100% that they are going to do a worse job of it then I am.

I'm not sure whether that's the reason you give money to the state. The way I see taxes, social security and all is it's a subsitute for the cooperation we had in our early days as humans. When people still lived in small tribes (think Native Americans) the people would help eachother and defend eachother from threats coming from outside. It would be a little strange if every person in that tribe would say they are an individual who doesn't want to contribute to their tribe since they can manage themselves. It would mean they would quickly die out because they couldn't cooperate in a hostile climate.

As societies grow larger the sense of direct cooperation may fade, but this can be substituted with state-driven programs like social security, a state managed army defending the people etcetera. To let that work people must contribute to their society through taxes. It's not about you being able to manage your own money, it's about you making your contribution to your society.

The problem is, these governments tend to forget that they're there for the people and work more in the interest of a small elite and against the interest of the general population. However, the people have the power to vote for a party which does work in their interest. But the two ruling parties and the media have made sure with the use of propaganda (either consciously or not - the effect is there) that people won't even consider voting for a third party. So you're stuck with two parties generally working in the interest of a very small portion of the population.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']We've also got things like a sort of legalized drug system, where use of soft drugs is allowed, there's *** marriage, abortion rights, you name it. We're very free :thumbsup:.


Blech.. :cheesy: lol sorry, this just popped out as being rather ironic. *carry on with your discussion*

[Leon[fp]]

Blech.. :cheesy: lol sorry, this just popped out as being rather ironic. *carry on with your discussion*

It seems we have conflicting ideas of freedom :lol: Care to explain? See, if you are forbidden to use drugs and forbidden to do abortions and forbidden to marry someone of the same sex, then I see that as a limiting of personal freedom.

[Eiger]

Illegal immigrants come into the United States because their government (take Mexico for example) has a vested interest in not the conditions of the majority of it's people. Why would the mexican government want to spend all the money that is necessary to provide the jobs, services and infrastracture that would improve the quality of life for it's people? Do you think that money would come from the pockets of Mexico's wealthy aristocrats who are de facto owners of the government? No, it's much cheaper to leave their people so destitute that members of a family are willing to risk their lives and leave loved ones behind for substandard pay, poor housing and menial work. Although relative to those they left behind this is a considerable improvement. And any extra money that is earned is sent home and out of the US economy. It's a win-win for Mexico. They don't have to provide basic services and foreign money flows into their economy for nothing. I emphathize with their plight, but this has got to stop. We can't let people sneak into our country, it's too dangerous. It's time for the Mexican government to take some responsibility for the welfare of all it's people.

And as far as improving schools is concerned, most taxpayers have learned that increasing spending on school only means more "misplaced" (read stolen) funds and that just mindlessly throwing money at the problem hasn't helped. When the largest CPA firm in the world uncovers cannot track down where the money is being syphoned off or how a dollar makes it into a class room, there is a serious problem. Lot's of money + no accountability = recipe for disaster. However, this is not to say that mindlessly cutting education (the current trend) is a bright idea either.

You have to understand Eiger, that if we (meaning most rational people) could trust that additional tax dollars taken in would go to schools, then I doubt you'd hear much complaint. The fact of the matter is that our education system is riddled with corruption. I'd have to be stupid to elect to willingly put more money into it, without first demanding that adequate controls are put in place.
As for Mexico - what they need is birth control. Nuff said on that one...

The educational system is riddled with corruption? Care to back that one up?

[Eiger]

The problem with social security is how its used. Savings+Pension+Social Security was how it was originally intended. Not just Social Security.
That's an excellent point. Social Security was never meant to provide a sole means of income, but rather a supplement to the other two items that you mentioned.

As for the Bush idea of allowing individual investment opportunities with Social Security - some people would do better investing it themselves, but many others wouldn't. Let's face it, the vast majority of the public don't understand how to play the stock market, probably including those who need social security the most. Wall Street is probably just chomping at the bit to get their hands on these dollars. Can you imagine all the investment scams that'd pop up to sucker these folks? I'd prefer to see one stream of income that is set and reliable (well as reliable as possible, we know the challenges SS faces dealing with the baby boomers).

[Havard]

As for Mexico - what they need is birth control. Nuff said on that one...

That's a bit of a callous statement considering that Mexico is predominantly Catholic. With religious folks, this issue is intertwined with faith and the government has no business telling people to practice birth control when their faith tells them otherwise.

[Leon[fp]]

and the government has no business telling people to practice birth control when their faith tells them otherwise.

And their faith (i.e. the pope and all) has no business telling people to not practise birth control even though it's in the best interest of their society.

[Eiger]

That's a bit of a callous statement considering that Mexico is predominantly Catholic. With religious folks, this issue is intertwined with faith and the government has no business telling people to practice birth control when their faith tells them otherwise.
Yup, it's a callous statement. Truth hurts sometimes. But this is a major problem with organized religion - promoting fertility to gain power in numbers, even though it causes larger social problems and suffering. But then suffering is good, eh?

[Havard]

Yup, it's a callous statement. Truth hurts sometimes. But this is a major problem with organized religion - promoting fertility to gain power in numbers, even though it causes larger social problems and suffering. But then suffering is good, eh?

Now that is just plain malicious. The foundation of Christian theology of sex has been in existence since early Judiasm (it's almost entirely from Judaism, the New Testament has little to add to the issue), and it's been affirmed philosophically by the doctors of the Catholic Church as well as Protestant thinkers based upon scripture and reason.

Your malicious assertion that it is all based upon numbers demonstrates your bias and ignorance of Christian theology and history.

[Leon[fp]]

Now that is just plain malicious. The foundation of Christian theology of sex has been in existence since early Judiasm (it's almost entirely from Judaism, the New Testament has little to add to the issue), and it's been affirmed philosophically by the doctors of the Catholic Church as well as Protestant thinkers based upon scripture and reason.

Your malicious assertion that it is all based upon numbers demonstrates your bias and ignorance of Christian theology and history.

We aren't (or I am not) talking about Christian theology and whether it's been "proved" philosophically or not. The issue here is that an organised religion has a decided influence on a society in a negative way. Who cares about how old that religion is or what Protestant thinkers think about the scripture. We're talking about current issues in a society.

EDIT: with all due respect of course ;). Oh, and you said something about this being a liberal board? I guess you're very right, with two people arguing against one of your statements at once :lol:.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']It seems we have conflicting ideas of freedom :lol: Care to explain? See, if you are forbidden to use drugs and forbidden to do abortions and forbidden to marry someone of the same sex, then I see that as a limiting of personal freedom.

Indeed. Freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but the power to do what you ought. You are right in asserting that people's free choices should not be restricted by the government, but in this case, a person's inner freedom is restricted by their own actions. People who perform abortions, or engage in substance abuse to make ends meet are not free people, they are slaves.

[Havard]

']And their faith (i.e. the pope and all) has no business telling people to not practise birth control even though it's in the best interest of their society.

First off, no one has to be a Christian. Second, if you are a Christian leader, you have a duty to weigh in on issues of the particular faith you lead. What else would you expect? What is the point of having leaders if they have no opinions? Your comment makes little sense to me.

[Eiger]

Now that is just plain malicious. The foundation of Christian theology of sex has been in existence since early Judiasm (it's almost entirely from Judaism, the New Testament has little to add to the issue), and it's been affirmed philosophically by the doctors of the Catholic Church as well as Protestant thinkers based upon scripture and reason.

Your malicious assertion that it is all based upon numbers demonstrates your bias and ignorance of Christian theology and history.
It's not malicious at all, it's just the concept behind the theology. Especially when a religion is young it seeks converts and growth. Fertility is an obvious source of new believers. The problem of overpopulation wasn't really an issue back then though. Religion has many times over modified its beliefs to protect its members, the prohibition on eating pork for example, now outmoded, but nevertheless it's a response to a health issue.

Overpopulation is a significant problem throughout the world and the Catholic church has a significant role in creating the problem and its solution. It's about time they acted to support family planning and birth control and they are negligent in not having done so thus far.

[Havard]

']The issue here is that an organised religion has a decided influence on a society in a negative way. Who cares about how old that religion is or what Protestant thinkers think about the scripture. We're talking about current issues in a society.

I was responding to Eiger's suggestion that the whole birth control ban is based upon some plot to gain more followers. The rationale for the Christian and Jewish doctrines have been deeply rooted long before birth control was a viable option, so his assertion is fallacious.

[Leon[fp]]

Indeed. Freedom is not the ability to do what you want, but the power to do what you ought. You are right in asserting that people's free choices should not be restricted by the government, but in this case, a person's inner freedom is restricted by their own actions. People who perform abortions, or engage in substance abuse to make ends meet are not free people, they are slaves.

But how does one know when one has the power to what you ought? I think this is just a case of definition. You could define freedom as the ability to do what you want. You could define freedom as the power to do what you ought. The problem I have with the second definition, is that I don't know what I ought to do. Do you mean in terms of your selfish interest (I mean this in a neutral way, selfish) a religious belief, the general interest, the interest of your family or what?

When you're talking about substance abuse, particularly when someone is addicted to drugs, I tend to agree you're not free at all. Still I'm in favour of the more tolerant approach taken by the Dutch government since it has actually reduced drug usage, the health risk and criminality because of better regulations and precautions. So perhaps this is not a freedom issue but a social problem issue which needs to be solved. However, when it comes to recreational usage, I would like to have that freedom. I sometimes smoke a joint and you could say I'm a slave to that joint, but then I'm also a slave to sports since I like to do sports regularly. I guess it's human need to find relaxation some way, and smoking a joint is one of them.

[Leon[fp]]

I was responding to Eiger's suggestion that the whole birth control ban is based upon some plot to gain more followers. The rationale for the Christian and Jewish doctrines have been deeply rooted long before birth control was a viable option, so his assertion is fallacious.

Not necessarily a plot. You could also call it a conscious policy of the Vatican. The church is still active in this society, so to say that they have stuck to doctrines a few millenia old and have not changed one small bit would be kind of odd. They have adjusted their believes and policies.

[Leon[fp]]

Second, if you are a Christian leader, you have a duty to weigh in on issues of the particular faith you lead.

Even if they run counter to the general interest? Such thinking could ultimately lead to our doom; at least it will not prevent it. The general interest is priority number one always. If my faith would demand me to kill off my friends and family I'd step off my faith, or at least I should. (Extreme example, but I use to make clear what I mean.)

[Essex]

i think leon is the first person to admit that he is a recreational drug user in one of these posts so its intersting to hear his side of things. I'm ok with recreational use, so long as it doesn't become an everyday have to do it sort of thing.

Then again why do we limit our selves to drugs? Couldn't everything that has been stated here be said about alcohol? Sex? Video games? This board (notice my posts lol) so we are very selective in what we choose to regulate. I'm more in favor of clearing jails of young men who do not deserve to be there due to minor pot charges even if it causes a few more addicts in return.

Then again I'm a hippy

[Leon[fp]]

I have no problems with my drug use. In fact, I really don't do it that often. At least not joints. Beer, that I do more often :). There's no taboo about smoking joints in Holland. The taboo is so non-existent that it's hardly used by young people for the excitement anymore. Now, isn't that a good development?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']But how does one know when one has the power to what you ought?


Knowing a thing, and living it can be two different things. In my post, I made mention of a series of lifestyle practises that are intrinsically disordered. How is this so? It goes against our innate desires for happiness and wholeness. Abortion kills, drugs pollute the body. Why do we do drugs? Is it not to escape? Escape from what? Our task is to discover our true purpose here, and not to bury the nuances of life according to our base needs. If there be some who would not answer the call, it's their choice, but their dark choices affect others who would struggle to attain the good.


I think this is just a case of definition.


No, not merely, at all. Each definition has substance, otherwise, it cannot be defined.


You could define freedom as the ability to do what you want.


No, one truly cannot, because of the above.


You could define freedom as the power to do what you ought. The problem I have with the second definition, is that I don't know what I ought to do.


Then because of your ignorance, you would throw it away? Actions like these are the reason why people believe in the first definition.


Do you mean in terms of your selfish interest (I mean this in a neutral way, selfish) a religious belief, the general interest, the interest of your family or what?


In general - disorder is using finite things to answer an infinite calling. This is not limited to an aspect of life, but is common for all.



When you're talking about substance abuse, particularly when someone is addicted to drugs, I tend to agree you're not free at all.


Glad you can see that.


Still I'm in favour of the more tolerant approach taken by the Dutch government since it has actually reduced drug usage, the health risk and criminality because of better regulations and precautions. So perhaps this is not a freedom issue but a social problem issue which needs to be solved.


No, it really is a freedom issue. The fact that political powers have given up on "discovering" the solution to the problem, and instead have decided to place legislation that allows for human corruption is very saddening.


However, when it comes to recreational usage, I would like to have that freedom. I sometimes smoke a joint and you could say I'm a slave to that joint, but then I'm also a slave to sports since I like to do sports regularly. I guess it's human need to find relaxation some way, and smoking a joint is one of them.

HAve it your way... slave. But I'll tell you this, there is a difference between ordered and disordered means of relaxation.

[Havard]

It's not malicious at all, it's just the concept behind the theology. Especially when a religion is young it seeks converts and growth. Fertility is an obvious source of new believers. The problem of overpopulation wasn't really an issue back then though. Religion has many times over modified its beliefs to protect its members, the prohibition on eating pork for example, now outmoded, but nevertheless it's a response to a health issue.

Overpopulation is a significant problem throughout the world and the Catholic church has a significant role in creating the problem and its solution. It's about time they acted to support family planning and birth control and they are negligent in not having done so thus far.

You are negligent in completely dismissing their theology. Judaism and Christianity are full of ethicists and philosophers and to suggest that you know what's best for society without even addressing their case is presumptuous to the extreme. Your quip about the Catholic Church being negligent is based upon your own concept of what is right, which is not laid out, either. Why should anyone accept your "ends-justify-the-means" position?

[Eiger]

HAve it your way... slave. Making friends again I see... :lol:

[Essex]

Making friends again I see... :lol:
i was just about to say something like that. It seems that people don't think you can do any drug in moderation. i would ask AoA have you never drank a beer or any alcohol at all? Its just as much a drug as pot and if you have then you too are a slave.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Making friends again I see... :lol:

hehe - Gotta keep you boys on your toes!

[Leon[fp]]

Knowing a thing, and living it can be two different things. In my post, I made mention of a series of lifestyle practises that are intrinsically disordered. How is this so? It goes against our innate desires for happiness and wholeness. Abortion kills, drugs pollute the body. Why do we do drugs? Is it not to escape? Escape from what? Our task is to discover our true purpose here, and not to bury the nuances of life according to our base needs. If there be some who would not answer the call, it's their choice, but their dark choices affect others who would struggle to attain the good.

Drug use will be problematic if you use it to escape reality. I think, though, that people use it to escape not for not wanting to know our true purpose, but to escape bad things happening in their life like parents abusing them, troubles in love, money problems, stress whatever. And is our task to discover our true purpose here? How do you know? See, I don't think there is a true purpose to our existence. You think otherwise. We could discuss about it, but I think we can agree that the issue is not entirely clear. So enforcing a policy (prohibiting drugs) on that basis wouldn't be okay.

No, one truly cannot, because of the above.

That is, if you assume there is actually a true purpose.

Then because of your ignorance, you would throw it away? Actions like these are the reason why people believe in the first definition.

Maybe I'm ignorant, maybe I happen to be right there is no purpose why we're here. I don't believe you have the answer, I don't believe I have. But I don't want to be forced to look for it, cause I personally think it to be a futile exercise, and I don't like forcing things anyway.

In general - disorder is using finite things to answer an infinite calling. This is not limited to an aspect of life, but is common for all.

I don't hear that infinite calling. Perhaps I'm a child of Satan because of that, but Ireally don't.

No, it really is a freedom issue. The fact that political powers have given up on "discovering" the solution to the problem, and instead have decided to place legislation that allows for human corruption is very saddening.

When there's crime, health risks and all that involved, I call it a social issue. If you think drug abuse is corruption, then you don't want it to happen, right? Now, the Dutch policy has actually reduced drug usage. Doesn't that make you happy in any way? This policy is a pragmatic policy aimed at actually solving the issue. Simply forbidding drug usage doesn't help. It doesn't make people suddenly all look for the true purpose. It increases drug usage, it increases crime, it increases risks to the health of the public.

Have it your way... slave.

I take it that was a joke :hanky:

[Eiger]

You are negligent in completely dismissing their theology. Judaism and Christianity are full of ethicists and philosophers and to suggest that you know what's best for society without even addressing their case is presumptuous to the extreme. Your quip about the Catholic Church being negligent is based upon your own concept of what is right, which is not laid out, either. Why should anyone accept your "ends-justify-the-means" position?
I don't know what their case is and I don't care. The results are plain enough to see and that's what matters. Why don't you enlighten us on their case against birth control and show us why it's a good thing for a country like Mexico. I'd love to see you accomplish that one...

[Havard]

']Even if they run counter to the general interest? Such thinking could ultimately lead to our doom; at least it will not prevent it. The general interest is priority number one always. If my faith would demand me to kill off my friends and family I'd step off my faith, or at least I should. (Extreme example, but I use to make clear what I mean.)

As I said before, you are free to join any religion (or none) if you want. But if I create a death cult that worships Baal, don't tell me to change it because you don't like it.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

i was just about to say something like that. It seems that people don't think you can do any drug in moderation. i would ask AoA have you never drank a beer or any alcohol at all? Its just as much a drug as pot and if you have then you too are a slave.

hehe, Essex, I've probably done more pot in my earlier days than you will do in your lifetime. I not only speak from philiosophical knowledge, but from experience. I know what it means to be a slave, and what it means to be free. As it is, you can't realize you are a slave until you know what it means to be free.

[Leon[fp]]

But if I create a death cult that worships Baal, don't tell me to change it because you don't like it.

I won't demand a change unless you suddenly want us all to kill our babies, which would be expected from a Baal-worshipping cult :D. See, when you start to have a negative impact on society, measures have to be taken.

[Havard]

I don't know what their case is and I don't care. The results are plain enough to see and that's what matters.

You are arguing for forcing religious people to sin, and thus jeopardize their hopes of salvation, because you think their beliefs are irrelevant? Some people would rather choose a finite life of poverty than infinite suffering in hell, but I guess you know what's best for them, don't you?

Why don't you enlighten us on their case against birth control and show us why it's a good thing for a country like Mexico. I'd love to see you accomplish that one...

You attack a person's belief and then make them defend their position? How noble of you.

[Essex]

As I said before, you are free to join any religion (or none) if you want. But if I create a death cult that worships Baal, don't tell me to change it because you don't like it.
havard I Don't think anyone is dissing the religion, or your faith. I know I'm not, hell its what you want to do just as my not beliveing is what I want to do. But you have to admit that the judeao-christian faith has a heavy influence in what happens in America, and I would perfer that it does not :)

[Essex]

hehe, Essex, I've probably done more pot in my earlier days than you will do in your lifetime. I not only speak from philiosophical knowledge, but from experience. I know what it means to be a slave, and what it means to be free. As it is, you can't realize you are a slave until you know what it means to be free.
no doubt you have, it's strange like I've said before in all my dabauchery (sp) I've never gotten around to doing drugs, drinking a drop of alcohol or smoking. I don't know if it was something I didn't want to do, lack of opprotuinty, or more than likely lack of money lol. But whatever it is I've chosen not to do any of those.

But what i'm arguing is that you seem to belive that there is no such thing as recreational drug use, from what you said about doing more pot.. ect. I would think that you probably were not recrational, but there are people who are capable of doing one joint every few months or so.

[Havard]

havard I Don't think anyone is dissing the religion, or your faith. I know I'm not, hell its what you want to do just as my not beliveing is what I want to do. But you have to admit that the judeao-christian faith has a heavy influence in what happens in America, and I would perfer that it does not :)

That is beside the point. If you want more atheistic or other influences, then support those lobbies. Here, we are talking about a policy that would cause people to violate their religion.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']Drug use will be problematic if you use it to escape reality. I think, though, that people use it to escape not for not wanting to know our true purpose, but to escape bad things happening in their life like parents abusing them, troubles in love, money problems, stress whatever.


To use a band-aid solution as a crutch is to be skeptical that there is an answer to the problem. Any problem has a solution, otherwise, it cannot be a reality. Escaping realit is the only use for recreational substance abuse - but that's the catch - you can't escape reality, you just deny it. (and then, reality per se cannot be denied, so you deceive yourself).


And is our task to discover our true purpose here? How do you know?


What a silly question! Even in your asking how that can be true, you still inherently seek a foundational reason. Most questions in life are lived, rather than asked. In living the question however, you eventually discover language in order to form questions that coincide with your lifestyle. As such, one who avoids living the question, avoids asking the question.


See, I don't think there is a true purpose to our existence.


Dumb Dumb Dumb! I actually got upset in reading that sentance. I wasn't suprised mind you, but it does sadden me that people can believe this to be the case. Jean Paul Sarte (20th century french philosopher) asserted that existence preceeds essence. That means, there is no purpose to existence, rather, we creat it. What a silly thought! Im glad he repented on his deathbead! To exist is to have an imbued essence, existence is its own purpose, given by the creator. Socrates said "an unexamined life is not worth living". How can you go on living in willed ignorance? :scratch:


We could discuss about it, but I think we can agree that the issue is not entirely clear.


No, the issue is crystal clear. Ironically, lifestyles that choose to deny reality obfuscate clear vision. In order to see clearly, you must live clearly.


That is, if you assume there is actually a true purpose.


Caught in the skepticism trap are you? Let me tug you free. Relativists who claim that there is "no absolute truth", by saying that, make an absolute truth-value statement. They philosophise by affirming their own denials. Im suprised they have the gaul to call themselves intellectuals. Poets, nothing more.


Maybe I'm ignorant, maybe I happen to be right there is no purpose why we're here. I don't believe you have the answer, I don't believe I have. But I don't want to be forced to look for it, cause I personally think it to be a futile exercise, and I don't like forcing things anyway.


Only the dead float downstream.. By means of my above paragraph, you will see that skepticism is simply folly. Re-read that section of text I pasted for you last week. If you don't get up and start fighting the current, it's your own fault. Why fight the current you ask? Simple. We all have base needs, and these can be met in many ways, though, if they are met by simple means, we will not attain the greatness we were created for. Do you want to live as an animal, or an actualized human being? Live like an animal, and an animal you will be. The greatest lie of the skeptic is to believe that the life he/she lives is the best possible way to live, while in denial of greater realities. Scheler gives a good account of this in his book "ressentiment". See if you can find it online.


I don't hear that infinite calling. Perhaps I'm a child of Satan because of that, but Ireally don't.


Enough conjecture. The "infinte calling" is a movement of the whole person, not an audiable voice like a skitzo. At the moment, you're choosing to answer that infinte call for happiness and peace by inferior means. You're selling out your existence.


When there's crime, health risks and all that involved, I call it a social issue. If you think drug abuse is corruption, then you don't want it to happen, right? Now, the Dutch policy has actually reduced drug usage. Doesn't that make you happy in any way? This policy is a pragmatic policy aimed at actually solving the issue. Simply forbidding drug usage doesn't help. It doesn't make people suddenly all look for the true purpose. It increases drug usage, it increases crime, it increases risks to the health of the public.


Corruption will happen regardless, as culture perpetuates it. Another silly thing in todays world is seeing enslaved, ignorant people failing to adress their own condition, and instituting legislation to cover it over. Almost makes me want to get involved in politics, but someone of my platform would not be listened to in that sphere. That's why by my books and teachings, I'll combat this idiotic stance.


I take it that was a joke :hanky:

Honestly, I was dead serious. I'd rather make you cry now, to see your greater good in time. You true friends will look out for the "whole you", not just help you in your own destruction.

[Eiger]

1) You are arguing for forcing religious people to sin, and thus jeopardize their hopes of salvation, because you think their beliefs are irrelevant? Some people would rather choose a finite life of poverty than infinite suffering in hell, but I guess you know what's best for them, don't you?

2) You attack a person's belief and then make them defend their position? How noble of you.
1) No, I'm arguing for the church to change its position so people don't have to sin.

2) I didn't think you could pull that one off.

[Essex]

That is beside the point. If you want more atheistic or other influences, then support those lobbies. Here, we are talking about a policy that would cause people to violate their religion.
are we talking about birth control? Well i'm sorry but I belive that it is necessary, if they don't want to break their faith then they shouldn't have sex, but they also shouldn't have a gaggle of children either. I never really thought that the birth control thing wasn't really that big of a deal anymore, most catholics use birth control or else we'd have a hell of a lot more catholics :)

[Eiger]

That is beside the point. If you want more atheistic or other influences, then support those lobbies. Here, we are talking about a policy that would cause people to violate their religion.
No, we're not talking about a policy that would cause people to violate their religion. We're talking about a change in the religion that would allow people to have better lives.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

But what i'm arguing is that you seem to belive that there is no such thing as recreational drug use, from what you said about doing more pot.. ect. I would think that you probably were not recrational, but there are people who are capable of doing one joint every few months or so.

Yes, I know many people who are recreational users, and I was for a time. Thing is, it's still just another method of escape. A free individual, or one on that road, will have no need to indulge, even on occasion.

[Havard]

']I won't demand a change unless you suddenly want us all to kill our babies, which would be expected from a Baal-worshipping cult :D. See, when you start to have a negative impact on society, measures have to be taken.

There are direct impacts and indirect impacts. Killing babies is a direct impact, becauase it violates the rights of others. But the social and marital policies of churches have indirect impacts, which do not violate anyone's rights. Take for example the Mormons. Mormon policies for generations have spread the religion all over with their larger-than-Catholic families. They have had a profound effect on the nation, and certainly do not support family planning. Now they have a right to influence culture insofar as they do not impinge upon the rights of other, such as passing certain laws in Utah that would be unconstitutional.

[Essex]

Yes, I know many people who are recreational users, and I was for a time. Thing is, it's still just another method of escape. A free individual, or one on that road, will have no need to indulge, even on occasion.
well I don't know all I know is that after reading what you post I feel like I need a joint, a burbon and a well for lack of a better word "lewinsky" just so that my head starts hurting.




and don't turn this around into some thing where you quote me and say something underneath it because it was a joke and nothing more.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

No, we're not talking about a policy that would cause people to violate their religion. We're talking about a change in the religion that would allow people to have better lives.

Sorry to interrupt your debate, but I'll say that if a religion's fundamental tenets can be changed, it is not truly a bona-fide religion or faith. It's expression may change cross-culture for the people, but its core statutes and doctrines cannot change. Indeed, in the case with Christianity, if people lived their faith, instead of taking this part, and that part that fit into THEIR OWN view, than their lives would fall into order as a result - an objective order, not a trial and error subjective system of their own artifice.

[Eiger]

There are direct impacts and indirect impacts. Killing babies is a direct impact, becauase it violates the rights of others. But the social and marital policies of churches have indirect impacts, which do not violate anyone's rights. Take for example the Mormons. Mormon policies for generations have spread the religion all over with their larger-than-Catholic families. They have had a profound effect on the nation, and certainly do not support family planning. Now they have a right to influence culture insofar as they do not impinge upon the rights of other, such as passing certain laws in Utah that would be unconstitutional.
One could argue that people's having more children impinges on others in that demand for housing increases raising housing prices, increases demand for resources in general, resulting environmental impacts, and such. There's plenty of research out there on the impacts of population growth and overpopulation. But anyway that's just a side note - I don't really care about this particular line of argument for the time being.

But I do want to share these particular stats with you...

US Catholics disagree with the bishops in the United States on the issue of contraception

59% of all Catholic women of childbearing age practice contraception—a rate of usage statistically equivalent to that of the general population: 60%. Of Catholic women practicing a method of contraception, only 3% use periodic abstinence.

Among married, non-Hispanic whites, 75% of Catholics practice a method of contraception: 4% of these rely on periodic abstinence (which the church permits) and the rest rely on methods forbidden by the church.

Even among Hispanic Catholics who both attend Mass and take communion at least monthly—who might be considered among the most likely to obey church moral teaching—about 37% practice a contraceptive method forbidden by the Catholic hierarchy.
1Calvin Goldscheider and William D. Mosher, "Patterns of Contraceptive Use in the United States: The Importance of Religious Factors," Studies in Family Planning, vol. 22 no. 2 (Mar./Apr. 1991), pp. 102-115; the figure of 38% was calculated on the basis of Table 6. Data are from the National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG), cycle IV, 1998, survey of 8,450 women 15-44 years of age; the 2,112 Catholics in the sample included 1,405 non-Hispanic whites, 441 Hispanics, and 200 non-Hispanic blacks. Information supplemented by conversation with author. This is the most recent year for which NSFG data on usage by religion have been published. NSFG data from the 1,195 survey became available in the spring of 1997 but usage has not yet been analyzed by religion.


82% of Catholics disapprove of the statement that using artificial birth control, such as condoms or birth control pills, is morally wrong. Specifically, 28% strongly disapprove and 54% disapprove.2


76% of Catholics disagree with the statement that using artificial means of birth control is wrong.3


88% of Catholics say someone who practices artificial birth control can still be a good Catholic, while only 8% say the opposite.4


73% of Catholics polled in a survey conducted for a conservative Catholic periodical disagreed with the statement that it is morally wrong to use artificial methods of birth control. Specifically, 57% strongly disagreed and 16% disagreed mildly.5
2 US News & World Report survey of 1,000 US adults, by Market Facts’ Telenation, designed by Lake Research and the Tarrance Group, Sept. 23-24, 1995, MOE ± 3.5%; subsample of 493 Catholics, MOE ± 4.5%

3 Time/CNN Nationwide poll of 1,000 adults, by Yankelovich Partners, Sept. 27-28 1995, MOE ± 3%, subsample of 500 Catholics, MOE ± 4.5%.

4 New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%.

5 Roper Center survey for Catholic World Report of 1,000 US Catholics, Jan.-Feb. 1997, MOE ± 3%, reported in "A Principal Rejected," Catholic World Report Mar. 1997, pp. 44-50.

[Havard]

are we talking about birth control? Well i'm sorry but I belive that it is necessary, if they don't want to break their faith then they shouldn't have sex, but they also shouldn't have a gaggle of children either. I never really thought that the birth control thing wasn't really that big of a deal anymore, most catholics use birth control or else we'd have a hell of a lot more catholics :)

They certainly can refrain from sex. Abstinence is taught by the Church. But your "necessity" argument falls short because eternal life is more valuable than life on earth, in the eyes of religious. Forcing the religious to violate this is equal to telling them to stop being religious at all.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

and don't turn this around into some thing where you quote me and say something underneath it because it was a joke and nothing more.

Lol - you'll need a burbon chaser heh.. I'll let u off the hook.. for now :evil:. I hope you're absorbing some of it tho :p

[Essex]

well then what Eiger just posted shows me there isn't going to be many catholic women in heaven... that's fine we'll treat them just fine down in hell with the gays and the rock stars lol (that was a joke too people)

[Eiger]

Sorry to interrupt your debate, but I'll say that if a religion's fundamental tenets can be changed, it is not truly a bona-fide religion or faith. It's expression may change cross-culture for the people, but its core statutes and doctrines cannot change. Indeed, in the case with Christianity, if people lived their faith, instead of taking this part, and that part that fit into THEIR OWN view, than their lives would fall into order as a result - an objective order, not a trial and error subjective system of their own artifice.
Well then I suppose the first question is whether or not birth control is a fundamental tenet.

Certainly the Catholic Church has changed its tenets over the centuries, some of them what I'd call fundamental, such as the concept of purchasing Papal Indulgences which spawned the Reformation when Luther rebelled against them. I believe you can't buy those anymore. What about the changes that occurred out of Vatican II? So, is the Catholic Church not a bona-fide religion as a result?

[Bartleby]

I know this post is huge, but if you want a quick introduction as to why throwing more money at our current education system is pointless, please read it. I highlighted some of it for the lazy :thumbsup: .

To Eiger: I figured everyone knew the problems with our education funds, which is why I made my statement without backup, but that was probably not a wise assumption. Most of the info is a quick google search away. I typed in things like "department education, funds, statistics, audit, mismanage, fraud, reform" in various sequences. It took about 15 minutes to find more information than I could ever need.
As for Mexico - what they need is birth control. Nuff said on that one...
I couldn’t disagree more. Mexico needs to take far more measures than just curbing their insane population growth. I’d say their near third world standard of living would be a reasonable place to start.

The educational system is riddled with corruption? Care to back that one up?

Just remember... you asked for it.

WASHINGTON – Education Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Pete Hoekstra said today that it was disappointing to learn that the U.S. Department of Education’s books, which track approximately $120 billion for the education of American children, are unauditable. This includes approximately $35 billion in direct Congressional appropriations and about $85 billion in the department’s student loan portfolio. Congressman Hoekstra, along with Congressmen Bob Schaffer, R-Colo., and Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., visited with Education Department officials Friday morning.

This was the debacle that kicked off a lot of controversy in 1999. Basically, the government couldn’t tell their head from their *** as far as education dollars were concerned so they brought in the largest and probably most prestigious CPA firm in the world to figure out where there money was going. The firm came back after I can’t remember how long and said that their records are so poor they are unauditable.

For those of you that don’t know, I am an auditor. I have seen god awful record keeping, but never in my life or in the lives of anyone I’ve ever spoken to have we deemed records to be so ridiculously bad that you can’t describe even a rudementary flow of income and expenses.

That should give you an idea of how accountable our education department is. They were contracted to audit for two years (1999 and 2000) and after giving recommendations for making the agency more efficient, accountable, and transparent (with respect to where tax dollars were going) the CPA firm came back with yet another damning report. It is unfathomable that an agency with a budget over 50 billion dollars does not even have the most basic internal controls.

These are some of the problems:

1. Records are inaccurate and inconsistent. (read fubared)

2. Documentation for financial transactions is missing.

3. Mistakes are routinely made in record keeping.

4. Financial mismanagement is rife.

Examples:

· One recipient of a student loan program either erroneously received or was erroneously credited with receiving a loan of more than $800 million.

· Outside auditors found a $6 billion discrepancy in funds left over from previous years.
The Education Department blames a faulty computer system that the department itself had put in.

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A997_0_2_0_C/ (http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/A997_0_2_0_C/) - Since the first part was about 1999 and 2000, this about 2001 and how the DOE handles people that try to force it to clean up it’s act. Please not that in 1999 the DOE’s budget was 38 billion, and as of 2001 the budget had increased by 17% to 44.5 billion. It will be near 58 billion in 2005.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/19/MNGVD790E51.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/19/MNGVD790E51.DTL) - A recent article about Oakland Schools



http://www.caltax.org/Fraud5-28-04.htm (http://www.caltax.org/Fraud5-28-04.htm) - The sad part is this is just California. I included this because CA has an enormous education budget, but equally enormous occurrences of mismanagement, fraud, and persecution of whistleblowers. I personally like the fact that 11 billion dollars for categorical programs goes unsupervised into unknown hands and that the State is not allowed to audit school attendance records.


For you Eiger here are some facts about the state of Washington’s education spending on the 2002-2003 school year. (There’s more information regarding the eroding performance of the students, but I figured I’d keep it to spending
Basic facts. 2,212 schools and 296 school districts in Washington state serve a student enrollment of 1,015,968. The state employs 59,810 certified teachers, 3,910 certified non-teaching staff (librarians, counselors, etc.), and 36,158 “other” full-time-equivalent (FTE) staff. This gives us a student/teacher ratio of 17 to one. The total FTE staff count is 99,878, providing a student/FTE staff ratio of 10.2 to one. And the total number of people working in the K-12 system (head count, including full-time and part-time) is 150,815, giving us a total student/all staff ratio of 6.7 to one.
Total spending. Washington spent $9,195,419,356 (all funds) on education in 2002-03. The state’s general fund education spending increased almost three times faster than inflation over the last decade (1993-95 to 2003-05), up 31.9% in real dollars and 13.1% in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Teacher Salaries. Teachers in our state are paid primarily based on how long they’ve had their job, not on how well they do it. Unfortunately, the state’s rigid salary structure (a gift from the teachers’ union) means some excellent teachers are paid less than they’re worth, while some poor teachers (who probably shouldn’t be in the classroom at all) are paid more. The average teacher salary in Washington state is $45,265. Factoring in benefits and supplemental contracts puts the average total compensation at $61,620. (note from Bartleby: This does not take into account that teachers work about at least 1/3 less days then most individuals, because they get spring break, winter break, summer break and many additional holidays. Class begins at 7 or 8am and is over by noon or sometime between 2-3pm. That’s a 6 hour day with one hour for lunch. I had considered and tried my hand at teaching for a short while. My guess is that good teachers actually put in 7-9 hours (depending on subject and efficiency) per day because of prep time, after class hours counseling, and grading; but I didn’t see that many good teachers.)
Spending per pupil. Figuring out how much Washington spends per pupil each year in K-12 schools is like trying to pick up a wet bar of soap. The numbers are elusive. The most recent data from OSPI say the state spends $9,454 per pupil. The most recent estimates from the National Education Association put the figure as high as $10,127. Even erring on the low side, are we ready to say we can’t provide most children with a quality education for $9,454 a year?
Use of dollars. Less than half (42.5 percent) of the dollars spent on education is used for what the Superintendent of Public Instruction defines as "basic instruction" (read reading, writing and arithmetic, history, etc) Are we certain the billions of dollars being used for other purposes are buying more value for students than would basic instruction in their classrooms? (The figure for CA schools is closer to 33%)

[Havard]

One could argue that people's having more children impinges on others in that demand for housing increases raising housing prices, increases demand for resources in general, resulting environmental impacts, and such. There's plenty of research out there on the impacts of population growth and overpopulation. But anyway that's just a side note - I don't really care about this particular line of argument for the time being.


Good. It's a bad one. :uhhuh:


And as far as US Catholics disagreeing, I would know, I am an American Catholic, who went to a Catholic university and knew plenty of American Catholics who feet this way. Guess what? None of them have any theological basis for their beliefs... they just didn't want to be "limited in that way."

I used to wish that birth control was an option for Catholics like myself, and I spent years reading theology and philosophy on the issue. I am grateful that I did, because now I am living a life that I know to be right. Am I to now be controlled by these hormonal nitwits who didn't bother to read or exercise self-control? Your logic confounds me.

[Leon[fp]]

To use a band-aid solution as a crutch is to be skeptical that there is an answer to the problem. Any problem has a solution, otherwise, it cannot be a reality. Escaping realit is the only use for recreational substance abuse - but that's the catch - you can't escape reality, you just deny it. (and then, reality per se cannot be denied, so you deceive yourself).

I didn't realize there are such grave things at stake when I'm smoking a joint once per two months (about)... Really, it sounds like you're making too great an issue over something so small. What have you to say about me drinking a beer? I drink more beer than I smoke joints. Is that escaping reality too? You seem to "know" that I'm escaping reality and that it's bad for me, but... hell, why do I even try, if I'm ignorant I can't convince you.

What a silly question! Even in your asking how that can be true, you still inherently seek a foundational reason. Most questions in life are lived, rather than asked. In living the question however, you eventually discover language in order to form questions that coincide with your lifestyle. As such, one who avoids living the question, avoids asking the question.

"Living the question." Interesting new concept. I have no idea what you mean and I have no idea how you're going to prove that concept applies to our world.

Dumb Dumb Dumb! I actually got upset in reading that sentance. I wasn't suprised mind you, but it does sadden me that people can believe this to be the case. Jean Paul Sarte (20th century french philosopher) asserted that existence preceeds essence. That means, there is no purpose to existence, rather, we creat it. What a silly thought! Im glad he repented on his deathbead! To exist is to have an imbued essence, existence is its own purpose, given by the creator. Socrates said "an unexamined life is not worth living". How can you go on living in willed ignorance? :scratch:

So what have you demonstrated? You say Sartre says A, but that's stupid! Cause actually it's like B. Where's the argumentation? "To exist is to have an imbued essence, existence is its own purpose, given by the creator." That's just a statement. Care to once again explain why and how this applies to our world?

No, the issue is crystal clear. Ironically, lifestyles that choose to deny reality obfuscate clear vision. In order to see clearly, you must live clearly.

You are quite confident of yourself. Maybe a little too confident.

Caught in the skepticism trap are you? Let me tug you free. Relativists who claim that there is "no absolute truth", by saying that, make an absolute truth-value statement. They philosophise by affirming their own denials. Im suprised they have the gaul to call themselves intellectuals. Poets, nothing more.

So there is an answer? You've got it?

Only the dead float downstream..

And the living, if the stream is hard enough...

We all have base needs, and these can be met in many ways, though, if they are met by simple means, we will not attain the greatness we were created for.

All statements, all assumptions. Care to demonstrate?

Do you want to live as an animal,

I am an animal. And so are you.

Live like an animal, and an animal you will be.

Sure okay. I'm enjoying most of it.

The greatest lie of the skeptic is to believe that the life he/she lives is the best possible way to live, while in denial of greater realities.

Who knows?

Enough conjecture. The "infinte calling" is a movement of the whole person, not an audiable voice like a skitzo. At the moment, you're choosing to answer that infinte call for happiness and peace by inferior means. You're selling out your existence.

I didn't realize I was answering an infinite call. But of course you are all-knowing and know better than the ignorant person that I am.

Corruption will happen regardless, as culture perpetuates it. Another silly thing in todays world is seeing enslaved, ignorant people failing to adress their own condition, and instituting legislation to cover it over. Almost makes me want to get involved in politics,

I hope you will not, because politics is about real issues and real solutions and not about all those funny little intellectual excercises of yours. There are problems with drug usage and prohibition won't stop it. A problem in real life calls for a pragmatic solution. If there are problems with transportation from one city to another, you don't philosphize about what is transportation and how does it fit in with the true purpose. You enhance the infrastructure. Pragmatic solutions to real problems. That's politics.

but someone of my platform would not be listened to in that sphere. That's why by my books and teachings, I'll combat this idiotic stance.

Thanks for trying to enlighten us ignorant people. You will fail miserably, though. That's not a wish, that's a realistic prediction.

Honestly, I was dead serious. I'd rather make you cry now, to see your greater good in time. You true friends will look out for the "whole you", not just help you in your own destruction.

Thank you but I don't need your help, cause frankly I personally don't think you are right about anything you just said. But I wouldn't mind if you weren't so arrogant and aggressive about it. Why did you have to call me a slave? Do you feel like you need to convert me or something? Stop thinking like you have the answer.

[Havard]

No, we're not talking about a policy that would cause people to violate their religion. We're talking about a change in the religion that would allow people to have better lives.

As AoA suggested, religions do not change their fundamental tenets. You might as well say that they should disband. Before you respond, I ask that you consider the centrality of life to these religions. Abortion/contracepton/euthanasia... all of these concepts are linked together and they cannot be unravelled without bringing down the whole doctrine of life. If you want to toy with this, you are playing with more than one belief, however insignificant you find it.

[Leon[fp]]

I sound a little frustrated, right? Well, I am! :grrr:

[Eiger]

Good stuff Bartleby. I didn't know about the unauditable nature of the funds and find that to be deplorable. Unauditable/mismanaged is not the same as corruption however. It opens the door for fraud related corruption, but I usually see corruption as situations where those in power take kickbacks on construction projects, steer projects toward cronies for $ and similar actions.

I used to have a friend who worked as a budget analyst for the Seattle School District. She commented a few times about how much money went to overhead and non-education specific programs. But that in defense these programs were mandated ones which required administrative overhead such as Disabilities Act programs, exceptional children programs, before & after school programs (babysitting), inter-school sports, policing, etc etc. Our schools now do a whole lot more than they used to for better or worse and that requires more $.

As for Washington, we've had a bunch of state-wide ballot measures passed by voters in recent years which gave a lot more $ to schools, including one that required a pay raise for teachers. That explains most of the increases.

The things that bug me are the ballot measures where schools ask for a blank check for $100 million for school improvements without giving you enough information on what exactly the $ will be used for. Then they put in some weasel words about how they can make adjustments later and use it for other stuff. I always vote those down until they come back with something more specific which they often do.

[Eiger]

I couldn’t disagree more. Mexico needs to take far more measures than just curbing their insane population growth. I’d say their near third world standard of living would be a reasonable place to start.

Hmm, I'm confused. You say you disagree, but also say they need to curb their insane population growth... Would you agree that overpopulation is a contributing factor to their third world standard of living - too many mouths to feed, house etc. relative to GDP?

[Eiger]

I used to wish that birth control was an option for Catholics like myself, and I spent years reading theology and philosophy on the issue. I am grateful that I did, because now I am living a life that I know to be right. Am I to now be controlled by these hormonal nitwits who didn't bother to read or exercise self-control? Your logic confounds me.
You never did enlighten us on what those theological underpinnings are... Or why they make good sense for a country like Mexico...

[Essex]

i'm sure havard will answer this but I don't think you can say that a religion cannot be changed and not be a bona-fied religion anymore.

I saw this thing on abc a few months ago about Jesus and Paul...most people consider Paul to be the force behind the Cathloic church and thusly Christanity. Christ never intended to start a new religion instead he wanted to change Judeaism.

Obviously that didn't happen quiet like he planned. If I'm not mistaken the thing that split Paul from the other aposals (sp) was circumsicion. Many romans did not want to have to be circumsized to follow the teachings so paul said it was ok they didn't have to, the rest of the crew (peter ect.) disagreed and there you have the begining of the split from the Jewish faith eventually becoming Catholism.

Then you have the indulgence changes, Cathlics no longer believe you can buy your way out of purgatory, however this was a huge tenante for much of the middle ages, if it doesn't happen recently does it not matter what changes took place?

What about the reformation itself and the branches of different protestant churchs that now exisist. All those branches came from some change in the church, believes over baptism (a big tenant if i'm not mistaken) music, communion, ect. So is only one branch of protestism right? Or are none of them right since they changed (broke from the catholic church) at some point?

[AgeOfAbnegation]

lol.. in ABC broadcasting we trust :p. Time to set the record strait. Judaism was not to be "modified". Jesus started it anew, much to the chagrin of the pharisees. Those fools in the media need to read some scripture. Namely, the book of Hebrews in the new testament, where st. paul adresses this very issue. Frikin idiots on tv.. *sigh*

To Eiger and Essex - That middle ages crap was not a "tenet" of the faith, but a misrepresentation, something like we've seen on TV :uhhuh:. Tenets of the faith are taken directly from scripture. If that seems probelmatic, I should replace "tenet" with a stronger word. I always tell new christians to forget about "social issues" till they've really got into the core meat and potatoes of the faith, and started praying habitually.

In regards to the reformation, I could post a litany of the reasons for its change. Namely, it came with the break from philosophical scholasticism in the west - with descartes, spinoza, etc. All of those guys discussed, and believed strongly in God, but they got the philosophical underpinnings *** backwards - hence, issuing in protestantism. In truth, Descartes, tho he fought "for the church", did more damage by promoting a-priori rationalism than did any heretic.

Now to tackle Leon.. This ***** of a forum better not crash on me..

[Havard]

You never did enlighten us on what those theological underpinnings are... Or why they make good sense for a country like Mexico...

As I said, before:

You attack a person's belief and then make them defend their position? How noble of you.

Either way, I'll begin, because you evidently are comfortable putting the burden on the shoulders of those you find fault with.

Beginning with Judaism, there is a prevailing theme of the sanctity of life. It can be found in many, many verses, which I will be happy to look up for you. Condemnation of birth control is a part of the sanctity of life, and it is both based in scripture/theology as well as philosophy (natural law.)

As far as scripture is concerned, two forms of contraception are mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, and they are condemned without exception (particularly Genesis 38:9–10 and Deuteronomy 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.

Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Since, many Protestant denominations have adopted the secularist position on contraception, even though Calvin, Luther, Wesley and the other great Protestant theologians all condemned the practice.

There is much, much more to be said on this issue... (as I said, I took years studying it) but my suggestions are to read Aquinas, and then Jaques Maritain for the natural law part. I could pull out more quotes and citations, but in order to prove this, you need to know natural law, first. The actual scripture part is relatively small, but the basis of theology for this issue begins with the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Epiphanius of Salamis, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Caesarius of Arles, etc., etc...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']I didn't realize there are such grave things at stake when I'm smoking a joint once per two months (about)...


Of course you dont. I posted that those who don't know what it means to be free, believe that slavery in its forms can be freedom. You seek to secure a sympathy vote by means of sarcasm, and that you may have garnered amongst the denizens of this forum, but now you're dealing with me, and I wont be fooled by it. Recreational, occasional drug use encompases a mentality that is ok with a disordered lifestyle - in fact, occasional users are worse off than hardcore users, as they mistakenly hold the notion of "moderation in all things". At least over time with heavy users, the toll that the drugs exact on their bodies sometimes allows them to snap out of it. Recreational users simply, over time, accustom themselves to mediocrity.


Really, it sounds like you're making too great an issue over something so small. What have you to say about me drinking a beer? I drink more beer than I smoke joints. Is that escaping reality too? You seem to "know" that I'm escaping reality and that it's bad for me, but... hell, why do I even try, if I'm ignorant I can't convince you.


You certainly wont convince me with that argument. I edited my previous post, adding that there is a difference between ordered, and disordered means of relaxation. Disordered means are done primarily to escape reality, and may also damage the body as a side effect. If I were to have a beer, which I do occasionally, I don't do it to get drunk. However, a joint will have me on cloud 9. Morals however should be discussed with a foundational belief structure established however, so perhaps we should discuss that before constructing a grocery list of technicalities.


"Living the question." Interesting new concept. I have no idea what you mean and I have no idea how you're going to prove that concept applies to our world.


It's really not that complicated. You do it every day. It's simply any activity you engage in. Sometimes its as simple as looking in the rear view mirror to see traffic behind you.


So what have you demonstrated? You say Sartre says A, but that's stupid! Cause actually it's like B. Where's the argumentation? "To exist is to have an imbued essence, existence is its own purpose, given by the creator." That's just a statement. Care to once again explain why and how this applies to our world?


One thing I did do is give you the texts. That way, you can read them yourself. His text is called "being and nothingness". After giving you the text, I offered to show you how to exist has to have a purpose, simply because it is existing. If existence were with no inherent purpose, there would be no definition, or goal, to anything. As such, the universe as it is could not be. Count your 10 fingers and toes.


You are quite confident of yourself. Maybe a little too confident.


And I won't give you reason to believe otherwise.


So there is an answer? You've got it?


If I don't have the answer now, I'll eventually have it. But reason points us in the correct direction. As Cassirer puts it "Knowledge is not limited by lack of reason, but rather the direction of reason". Namely, its in time and hard work that all things knowable to a person will be made known. And if it's beyond our powers of comprehension, reason will narrow our options for us. It's really quite simple.


And the living, if the stream is hard enough...


Yes, but we are made for walking it :).


All statements, all assumptions. Care to demonstrate?


Clarify again plz.


I am an animal. And so are you.


Yes but a rational animal, who strives to live up to his potential.


I didn't realize I was answering an infinite call. But of course you are all-knowing and know better than the ignorant person that I am.


Dont revert to BS sarcasm.


I hope you will not, because politics is about real issues and real solutions and not about all those funny little intellectual excercises of yours.


Real issues.. It's funny intellectual exercizes like these that give substance to these real issues you attest to. Stay with the debate content, or leave plz.


There are problems with drug usage and prohibition won't stop it. A problem in real life calls for a pragmatic solution. If there are problems with transportation from one city to another, you don't philosphize about what is transportation and how does it fit in with the true purpose. You enhance the infrastructure. Pragmatic solutions to real problems. That's politics.


Nobody is slighting pragmatism, but decisive action without reason is folly. Thats why "think tanks" exist. Ironically, I previously believed that pragmatism was the virtue you lacked. Most people think of the solution, but never put it into practise.


Thanks for trying to enlighten us ignorant people. You will fail miserably, though. That's not a wish, that's a realistic prediction.


I'll certainly fail if you want me to. I can't instruct a brick wall. Also, your sarcastic remarks don't do justice to debate. If you find folly in my words, tackle them without sarcasm. If I let my emotions go, I'd be screaming at you by now :p.


Thank you but I don't need your help, cause frankly I personally don't think you are right about anything you just said. But I wouldn't mind if you weren't so arrogant and aggressive about it. Why did you have to call me a slave? Do you feel like you need to convert me or something? Stop thinking like you have the answer.

Why a slave? I told you why. Slavery to disorder. And no, I will not stop assenting to a universal solution. Anything other than that is intellectual dishonesty. You are hereby asking me to lay aside truth for comaraderie. I'd never befriend someone of your mentality. Tell you what. If you disagree with my posts, tell me exactly what notions you find problematic, and im more than happy to discuss them. Just to give you a heads up, you'll be battling against the greatest minds of the last 3000 years. Why is it that they bring up the same stuff? Because it's a universal norm perhaps? You want to step up to the plate, I'm ready to play ball.

[Havard]

Eiger:

As far as the people of Mexico are concerned, their situation cannot be made better if their souls are jeopardized in the process. There are many ways to help impoverished people, your forcing contraception on others is only worth the risk in your set of beliefs.

[Bartleby]

Hmm, I'm confused. You say you disagree, but also say they need to curb their insane population growth... Would you agree that overpopulation is a contributing factor to their third world standard of living - too many mouths to feed, house etc. relative to GDP?
My disagreement was to the idea that slowing their population growth is the answer to all their problems. The mexican government throughout it's history has never helped the majority of the population. And population and third world standard of living is akin to which came first chicken or egg debate.

All third world countries have staggering birth rates due to many factors like, need for children for sale or labor to make $ for the family, to hedge against mortality rates and short life spans, and because of lack of birth control measures. At the same time this further exasperates the standard of living.

In short, I agree the population needs to be brought under control, but I don't see it likely that their government subsequently taking steps to improve their quality of life. However if the quality of life was improved (less mortalities, more education, birth control and little or no need for child slavery or labor) then I think it more likely that the population would come (or could be brought) under control as it has in the US.

[Bartleby]

Unauditable/mismanaged is not the same as corruption however. It opens the door for fraud related corruption, but I usually see corruption as situations where those in power take kickbacks on construction projects, steer projects toward cronies for $ and similar actions.
See it how you like, but IMO if the money goes anywhere other than where it's supposed to then it's corrupt. In most of these cases it wasn't like the money ended up in some other program, instead it usually fattened personal
bank acct's and bought shiny new cars. I don't see how that's any better or worse that kickbacks and project steering.


I used to have a friend who worked as a budget analyst for the Seattle School District. She commented a few times about how much money went to overhead and non-education specific programs. But that in defense these programs were mandated ones which required administrative overhead such as Disabilities Act programs, exceptional children programs, before & after school programs (babysitting), inter-school sports, policing, etc etc. Our schools now do a whole lot more than they used to for better or worse and that requires more $.
Usually referred to as categorical programs, and even though the money is supposed to be ear marked, look how well that's worked for California. The best part is that the Dept of Ed takes up 50% of the districts staff time to administer these and other funds which usually only comprise a much smaller portion of the overall budget.



The things that bug me are the ballot measures where schools ask for a blank check for $100 million for school improvements without giving you enough information on what exactly the $ will be used for. Then they put in some weasel words about how they can make adjustments later and use it for other stuff. I always vote those down until they come back with something more specific which they often do.
One of the few times you and I are in agreement :thumbsup:
....
*grabs skis n heads fer hell* ;)

[Eiger]

[/color]
See it how you like, but IMO if the money goes anywhere other than where it's supposed to then it's corrupt. In most of these cases it wasn't like the money ended up in some other program, instead it usually fattened personal
bank acct's and bought shiny new cars. I don't see how that's any better or worse that kickbacks and project steering.


Oh, I agree. However, I don't remember seeing that that's what happened to it. Just because they can't manage their books, doesn't mean it's going to the wrong place. Certainly makes it more possible, though. I'm referring to the DOE stuff rather than California here, btw.

[Bartleby]

Some of what was found to have occured to DoE funds was the diverting of funds to line wallets and some guy bought himself a corvette. It's been a while, but I'm sure I can find some of the follow ups to the audits.

[Eiger]

Beginning with Judaism, there is a prevailing theme of the sanctity of life. It can be found in many, many verses, which I will be happy to look up for you. Condemnation of birth control is a part of the sanctity of life, and it is both based in scripture/theology as well as philosophy (natural law.)

As far as scripture is concerned, two forms of contraception are mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, and they are condemned without exception (particularly Genesis 38:9–10 and Deuteronomy 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law.

Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Since, many Protestant denominations have adopted the secularist position on contraception, even though Calvin, Luther, Wesley and the other great Protestant theologians all condemned the practice.

There is much, much more to be said on this issue... (as I said, I took years studying it) but my suggestions are to read Aquinas, and then Jaques Maritain for the natural law part. I could pull out more quotes and citations, but in order to prove this, you need to know natural law, first. The actual scripture part is relatively small, but the basis of theology for this issue begins with the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, Lactantius, Epiphanius of Salamis, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Caesarius of Arles, etc., etc...
Ok, and now how does this stuff written during a period which didn't suffer from overpopulation now make sense for a country like Mexico with one of the world's highest birth rates and suffering from the effects of overpopulation?

[Eiger]

Eiger:

As far as the people of Mexico are concerned, their situation cannot be made better if their souls are jeopardized in the process. There are many ways to help impoverished people, your forcing contraception on others is only worth the risk in your set of beliefs.
Ah, I should have seen this prior to writing my last post. So I'm forcing contraception on others now, huh? This argumentation style of putting words in my mouth reminds me oh so much of my wife's ex-husband - he's a master at that kind of stuff.

Nevertheless, I'm saddened that rather than deal with a serious world-wide problem, some of us choose to hide behind scripture.

[Havard]

Ok, and now how does this stuff written during a period which didn't suffer from overpopulation now make sense for a country like Mexico with one of the world's highest birth rates and suffering from the effects of overpopulation?

What we're dealing with here is an ends-justify-the-means scenario, taken to the extreme. Now, Genesis and Deuteronomy were written a long time ago, but there were still family concerns at in time. Even back then, by coitus interruptus, people could have smaller families, which reduced their economic strain. There was no exception for economic hardship, because the frustration of sex itself was proscribed as being sinful, not its effects (or lack thereof.)

And for your theory to be correct, you would have to believe that the ends may justify the means, which does not work in a religious environment. You cannot weigh an evil of the physical world (famine) against an evil of the spiritual one (sin).

[Havard]

Ah, I should have seen this prior to writing my last post. So I'm forcing contraception on others now, huh? This argumentation style of putting words in my mouth reminds me oh so much of my wife's ex-husband - he's a master at that kind of stuff.


Pardon, what are you saying then? Your words have not taken on a "suggestive" tone. You said that birth control was the answer and that religions are frustrating your family planning solution. Since it all comes down to individual free will, and since Mexicans already are free to do what they choose, what else were you suggesting if not forcing something?

Further, I went with that assumption a long time ago. If you had read my posts, why you did not say anything before? I have no intention of putting words into anyone's mouthes, you should clarify a misunderstanding before calling someone's reasonable assumption an "argumentation style."

Nevertheless, I'm saddened that rather than deal with a serious world-wide problem, some of us choose to hide behind scripture.

By "some of us", I dare read into that also, and assume you are referring to me. If not, I still take issue with the comment... Do you not read my posts? Your implication that I hide behind scripture is reckless and ignorant... I already mentioned that I wrestled with this issue for years, and now my dessert is to be ridiculed for "hiding" from it? Well, your implication is not well-received.

[Danny5]

I don't like special rights or special treatment, and I couldn't care less what people are doing as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. That means I'm for g.ay marriage and g.ay adoption.
Abortion? I believe children are alive from conception, so I'm against it although I often find myself torn.
Drugs? Don't care, legalize and offer education and clinics, I don't use, but it's no different to me than booze or cigs.
Immigration? I empathize with the plight of others, but for safety's sake nobody should be allowed to enter illegally.
Education? Pay teachers, not administrators, break up the unions and actually teach the 3 R's.
Taxes? Why does the IRS code need to be so complicated and why the **** do we still collect taxes to help win WWII?
Social Programs? There are needs to be met and gov't has proven time and again that it is incapable of managing the needs of society itself. The gov't could however facilitate the meeting of these needs and with proper incentive most if not all could be met by individuals and businesses.
Environment? We live here, we need to be good stewards, but within reason people still come first.
US Foreign Policy? We are the remaining superpower, minor decisions for the US can have major impacts on others. Whatever we do, we need to tread carefully.
Military? I believe every citizen should serve a mandatory two years active duty in the military, public service does not count.
Did I support going into Iraq? Yes, Saddam should have been dealt with years ago.



You sir, are the man.
Thanks for summing up my entire political outlook for me :p

[Essex]

Pardon, what are you saying then? Your words have not taken on a "suggestive" tone. You said that birth control was the answer and that religions are frustrating your family planning solution. Since it all comes down to individual free will, and since Mexicans already are free to do what they choose, what else were you suggesting if not forcing something?

Further, I went with that assumption a long time ago. If you had read my posts, why you did not say anything before? I have no intention of putting words into anyone's mouthes, you should clarify a misunderstanding before calling someone's reasonable assumption an "argumentation style."



By "some of us", I dare read into that also, and assume you are referring to me. If not, I still take issue with the comment... Do you not read my posts? Your implication that I hide behind scripture is reckless and ignorant... I already mentioned that I wrestled with this issue for years, and now my dessert is to be ridiculed for "hiding" from it? Well, your implication is not well-received.
ok havard just curious the spirital side of things is that you are not to have sex without the possibility of making life right? Then what about infertile couples? Are they allowed to have sex or should they not bother? just curious about that.

[Leon[fp]]

Of course you dont. I posted that those who don't know what it means to be free, believe that slavery in its forms can be freedom.

That's using your definition of freedom. The power to do what you ought at least won't sound like freedom to most people. Because doing something what you ought is something which is ordered and something which you can't change, hence no freedom. Maybe you could call it discipline or something, but calling it freedom is confusingly using a word for something for which it won't be used in normal conversations.

You seek to secure a sympathy vote by means of sarcasm, and that you may have garnered amongst the denizens of this forum, but now you're dealing with me, and I wont be fooled by it.

Noooooooo!

Recreational, occasional drug use encompases a mentality that is ok with a disordered lifestyle - in fact, occasional users are worse off than hardcore users, as they mistakenly hold the notion of "moderation in all things". At least over time with heavy users, the toll that the drugs exact on their bodies sometimes allows them to snap out of it. Recreational users simply, over time, accustom themselves to mediocrity.

Mediocrity, relaxation, whatever. Some of my friends smoke a bit of pot, some don't. I don't really see a difference in their mediocrity. Of course, maybe you're using a special definition of mediocrity. Maybe I could feel like I'm living the best life I ever could, but you're simply defining it as mediocre.

You certainly wont convince me with that argument. I edited my previous post, adding that there is a difference between ordered, and disordered means of relaxation. Disordered means are done primarily to escape reality, and may also damage the body as a side effect.

Such as, alcohol? Alcohol may damage the body. Some people drink beer to forget about problems (escape reality). So it's exactly the same. Exactly, except for the fact that one is alcohol and the other is weed and alcohol is legal to use. I reckon that's a superficial distinction. Now we can extent your argument to not only smoking pot or doing any other soft or hard drugs but also using alcohol (which happens to be another drug). Now, can we think of any other things we do to escape reality? Watching films (most films, some confront you with reality). Most people watch films to forget about life, sit back and relax and escape reality. It isn't the same experience as drugs, but it's still the same goal. But it doesn't harm your body, except maybe getting neck problems from sitting in uncomfy chairs. I'm sure there are other things a person does to escape reality, lots.

However, a joint will have me on cloud 9.

It hasn't such a powerful effect on me. Maybe you're oversensitive to it.

It's really not that complicated. You do it every day. It's simply any activity you engage in. Sometimes its as simple as looking in the rear view mirror to see traffic behind you.

So you gave a description of what you mean by living the question. It's a bit useless calling that "living the question" though. You might as well call it living or call it nothing at all. You don't need to have another group of words which is defined as "being any activity you engage in". Still I don't see how that gives us a new insight into the workings of our world.

One thing I did do is give you the texts. That way, you can read them yourself. His text is called "being and nothingness". After giving you the text, I offered to show you how to exist has to have a purpose, simply because it is existing. If existence were with no inherent purpose, there would be no definition, or goal, to anything. As such, the universe as it is could not be. Count your 10 fingers and toes.

If there were no inherent purpose, there would be no goal to anything in it? I don't see why I should object to that, except maybe for emotional reasons. It's us humans that may like to see a goal in everything. It might help us stay focused, I'm not sure what the evolutionary advantage is, but we do like to see a goal in everything. That doesn't mean that there actually is a goal to everything though. A universe can just be. Why would our human needs be refelective of how the universe works? It's a very homocentric view you have. I don't see anything special to us humans, who are one of the many creatures who evolved in one of the many many planets billions of years after the origin of the universe. It's understandable that we like to see us as the purpose of creation or us having some sort of special purpose; we view our entire life through our own eyes and consciousness. It's perfectly logical that we perceive the world to be centered around us. However, this doesn't make that view universally right.

And I won't give you reason to believe otherwise.

Of course not.

If I don't have the answer now, I'll eventually have it.

Rrrrright.

But reason points us in the correct direction.

Maybe you're using the wrong reason.

As Cassirer puts it "Knowledge is not limited by lack of reason, but rather the direction of reason". Namely, its in time and hard work that all things knowable to a person will be made known. And if it's beyond our powers of comprehension, reason will narrow our options for us. It's really quite simple.

Who knows. What if you die before that happens? What if not everything can be known. I'm not that knowledgeable about history of philosophy, but I do know there are some philosophers who thought not everything could be known to us humans (don't know about the details of their statements of course). How dare you question the ideas of such great minds?

Clarify again plz.

"We all have base needs, and these can be met in many ways, though, if they are met by simple means, we will not attain the greatness we were created for." What greatness are you exactly talking about? When do you know you are meeting your base needs by simple means? How do you know that by satisfying our base needs we will attain the greatness we were created for? All assumptions.

Yes but a rational animal, who strives to live up to his potential.

That's how you perceive it. Maybe you have been blinded by this idea of potential. You're striving all your life to find the true purpose and all and when you die you die and that's it. Or you may turn to be right. Who knows?

Dont revert to BS sarcasm.

Acknowledged, oh great bringer of light and reason.

Real issues.. It's funny intellectual exercizes like these that give substance to these real issues you attest to.

Maybe in your world.

Nobody is slighting pragmatism, but decisive action without reason is folly. Thats why "think tanks" exist. Ironically, I previously believed that pragmatism was the virtue you lacked. Most people think of the solution, but never put it into practise.

Bah, think tanks, who needs em. Look, there is a problem with drug use. Practically no one in the Netherlands would think about the problem like you do. The more real problems are discussed: crime, addiction, damage to health and all that. Then we would like to know how it should be solved. So we legalized soft drugs. And oh wonder: less crime, less DRUG USE! Do you want less drug use? Well, here's your pragmatic solution. No need for any think tanks anymore. Prohibition won't help. It hasn't helped. So you have a goal (less drug use) and you're trying to attain that goal with something that won't help you get anywhere near it. The Dutch solution has worked. Not perfectly, but better than anything else at the moment. So there's your pragamatism.

I'll certainly fail if you want me to. I can't instruct a brick wall. Also, your sarcastic remarks don't do justice to debate. If you find folly in my words, tackle them without sarcasm. If I let my emotions go, I'd be screaming at you by now :p.

I thought about stating here some things about the emotional character of humans and rationality and all, but I don't want to start yet another discussion... Anyway, you're being quite selective about which rhetorical tricks to use. You're using tricks like putting all your ideas into nice-sounding words, like your definition of freedom, "true" purpose, and of course calling me a slave, which happens to put a distinctly negative connotation to what you're trying to say. Those are rhetorical tricks, just like my sarcasm is part of my rhetoric. It's difficult to avoid using some rhetoric. You could have used a neutral tone (saying, of course, the same things) but that doesn't add that extra spark to the debate.

Why a slave? I told you why. Slavery to disorder. And no, I will not stop assenting to a universal solution.

Ok, but who's to tell you're not a slave to your human instincts of wanting to see a higher goal in everything?

Anything other than that is intellectual dishonesty.

Ok

You are hereby asking me to lay aside truth for comaraderie.

I didn't ask you to be my comrade either. At first I was depressed that you, AoA, didn't want to be my friend. Now, however, I've come over that depression and feel reborn again. It's like I found a new reason to live and a weight fell off my shoulders.

I'd never befriend someone of your mentality.

Way to spread the word.

Just to give you a heads up, you'll be battling against the greatest minds of the last 3000 years. Why is it that they bring up the same stuff? Because it's a universal norm perhaps? You want to step up to the plate, I'm ready to play ball.

Ah, the rhetorical trick of intimidation and the fallacy of authority. Why is it that they bring up the same stuff? Cause they, perhaps, didn't live completely isolated from eachother? Perhaps they were influenced by their upbringing and the intellectual climate of the day. Or maybe it's very human to think that way? A universal norm, hmmm. That's putting a lot of weight to the ideas of a collection of thinkers on a small planet somewhere in the enormously huge universe. Perhaps there are other civilizations in the universe who came up with something completely different. Perhaps there are even people on this planet who came up with something different. Well, are there?

END NOTE: Perhaps you have seen some additional use of sarcasm in this post. Forgive me, for I have sinned. I cannot think a thought or write a word without wanting to use the dreaded sarcasm tool. I hope you can forgive me, for I can not forgive myself. Will I enter the gates of Heaven? Nay. It is Hell which is my destiny.

[Essex]

']
Will I enter the gates of Heaven? Nay. It is Hell which is my destiny.

don't worry you get use to it.

[Leon[fp]]

don't worry you get use to it.

Thanks for the support :lol: :thumbsup:

[AgeOfAbnegation]

ok havard just curious the spirital side of things is that you are not to have sex without the possibility of making life right? Then what about infertile couples? Are they allowed to have sex or should they not bother? just curious about that.

I can answer that.. Sex is not only procreative, but also unitive. The only thing is that ppl be open to the gift of children.

[Essex]

well then aren't the people using contraceptives just being unitive? if unitivie is ok that is?

[Eiger]

What we're dealing with here is an ends-justify-the-means scenario, taken to the extreme. Now, Genesis and Deuteronomy were written a long time ago, but there were still family concerns at in time. Even back then, by coitus interruptus, people could have smaller families, which reduced their economic strain. There was no exception for economic hardship, because the frustration of sex itself was proscribed as being sinful, not its effects (or lack thereof.)

And for your theory to be correct, you would have to believe that the ends may justify the means, which does not work in a religious environment. You cannot weigh an evil of the physical world (famine) against an evil of the spiritual one (sin).
It's this kind of absurd reasoning which helps me remain non-religious. Let's solve overpopulation by a "Just Say No" type of campaign. Tell people that if they don't want more children either to abstain or use the pull out method. That just won't work. It doesn't work with drugs and it surely won't work with sex. These are real world problems which require real world solutions. I'm thinking that God would agree that an "evil" such as famine is less desirable than an "evil" such as using prophylactics. So I'm saying that the ends certainly justify the means in this case.

[Eiger]

Pardon, what are you saying then? Your words have not taken on a "suggestive" tone. You said that birth control was the answer and that religions are frustrating your family planning solution. Since it all comes down to individual free will, and since Mexicans already are free to do what they choose, what else were you suggesting if not forcing something?

Further, I went with that assumption a long time ago. If you had read my posts, why you did not say anything before? I have no intention of putting words into anyone's mouthes, you should clarify a misunderstanding before calling someone's reasonable assumption an "argumentation style."

By "some of us", I dare read into that also, and assume you are referring to me. If not, I still take issue with the comment... Do you not read my posts? Your implication that I hide behind scripture is reckless and ignorant... I already mentioned that I wrestled with this issue for years, and now my dessert is to be ridiculed for "hiding" from it? Well, your implication is not well-received.
Forcing is clearly different. That's what China does - one couple, one child. If you have a second pregnancy there are forced abortions, or if the child is born the couple suffers sanctions. That's use of coercive force.

What I'm suggesting is that the church change it's position to grant their members freer will. While they can certainly exercise free will currently, they are less likely to do so for fear of sinning in the eyes of the church. If this barrier is lifted, they may use contraception without such fears. That's what I'm saying. It's quite a bit different than your assumption.

I didn't expect my comment to be well received, but it still stands. I do believe your position is reckless. Sorry, but these are different times than those in which the bible was written, we need to adjust, progress and make changes necessary to assure a decent future for ourselves and our children. It'd be nice if the church would take a leadership position, but since they aren't willing, it appears we'll have to drag them kicking and screaming. And they'll change eventually - no church likes losing members. They'll change eventually, it's just a matter of time.

[Eiger]

To Eiger and Essex - That middle ages crap was not a "tenet" of the faith, but a misrepresentation, something like we've seen on TV :uhhuh:. Tenets of the faith are taken directly from scripture. If that seems probelmatic, I should replace "tenet" with a stronger word. I always tell new christians to forget about "social issues" till they've really got into the core meat and potatoes of the faith, and started praying habitually.

Perhaps. However, the ability to be absolved of sin and the means by which that may be obtained is pretty darn central to a religion. And for many centuries people could obtain salvation through the purchase of indulgences. While we'll certainly agree that this was a corrupt practice in every way (at least I think we'll agree, hehe) it was done and it was changed. I'm sure there are plenty of smart guys over at the Vatican who can spin a change on birth control so that it fits with scripture. :lol: Ok, I'm being a little facetious having worked in the political spin game for so long...

[Eiger]

well then aren't the people using contraceptives just being unitive? if unitivie is ok that is?
I'm guessing that AoA would say that if they're using contraception then they're not open to the gift of children...

[Essex]

I'm guessing that AoA would say that if they're using contraception then they're not open to the gift of children...
hell I think they just need to change the idea that children are a gift, loud, annoying, little mess bags.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hello again. Long post.. I'll extract the most important issues.


']That's using your definition of freedom.

...you're simply defining it as mediocre.


This subjectivising theme.. I will send you my text on scepticism. We can label things yes, but our task is to discover the language, as we discover objective norms.


Such as, alcohol? Alcohol may damage the body. Some people drink beer to forget about problems (escape reality). So it's exactly the same. Exactly, except for the fact that one is alcohol and the other is weed and alcohol is legal to use. I reckon that's a superficial distinction.


Yes, superficial. If however you have the goal to engage in any and all passtimes (like watching TV) to escape reality, all activities will seem to be of the same nature. The key is the motive, and secondly, the application, which may differ in expression and in some cases, severity. As such, the modes of severity factor in as well.


Still I don't see how that gives us a new insight into the workings of our world.


What kind of insights are you looking for? Tragedies occur when we use the wrong method to answer a question - like empiricism to discover metaphysics, or vice versa.


If there were no inherent purpose, there would be no goal to anything in it? I don't see why I should object to that, except maybe for emotional reasons. It's us humans that may like to see a goal in everything. It might help us stay focused, I'm not sure what the evolutionary advantage is, but we do like to see a goal in everything. That doesn't mean that there actually is a goal to everything though.


You were right to state emotional reasons. You demonstrate a reductionsit model. Because something exists, it cannot exist for nothing, or from nothing.



A universe can just be. Why would our human needs be refelective of how the universe works? It's a very homocentric view you have.


Silly. You're so good at separating realities. Human needs are part of the universe's inherent structure. THis is ironic, as you have a detached view anyhow. lol.. what other view could I have, other than "homocentric"? Im sorry, but I cannot think like an amoeba heh. Get real. By philosophizing, we discover the world by means of OUR FACULTIES. That can still elicit an objective view, by means of language that we may discover.


I don't see anything special to us humans, who are one of the many creatures who evolved in one of the many many planets billions of years after the origin of the universe.


You should, because you are one. You can only speak of that reality. Furthermore, the second part of the statement is assumption. Damn kid, you must read metaphysics. If I offer you texts, will you read?


It's understandable that we like to see us as the purpose of creation or us having some sort of special purpose; we view our entire life through our own eyes and consciousness.


Alot can be gleaned from desire. Why do we "need" this kind of security?


It's perfectly logical that we perceive the world to be centered around us. However, this doesn't make that view universally right.


Just plain sloppy. You switched from emotional-reduction based thinking to logic? It's not at all "logical" that we are the center of the universe.


Maybe you are using the wrong reason


There is only one power of reason inherent in the human being - what matters is that we obey its laws. Ref. Kant - Critique of pure reason. Once you start reading this stuff, you wont think like a child anymore.


Who knows. What if you die before that happens? What if not everything can be known.


What counts is knowing what we are able to know, not ignoring it.


I'm not that knowledgeable about history of philosophy, but I do know there are some philosophers who thought not everything could be known to us humans (don't know about the details of their statements of course). How dare you question the ideas of such great minds?


lol I believe that as well - ironically, you should start reading those texts. In terms of "knowing everything", that depends on what kind of being we are. Since we learn by the senses, and reason, we cant conceivably know everything sure, but there is no room for skepticism, by means of the direction of knowledge that reason gives us, as well as a concrete scope of empirical content.


"We all have base needs, and these can be met in many ways, though, if they are met by simple means, we will not attain the greatness we were created for." What greatness are you exactly talking about? When do you know you are meeting your base needs by simple means? How do you know that by satisfying our base needs we will attain the greatness we were created for? All assumptions.


Not an assumtion at all. Indeed, its by the satiation of our base needs that a greater need is revealed. When we reach the top, where is there to go? We will always desire more than what there is. However, as troubling as that may be, some revert to escapism to answer that call :uhhuh:.


That's how you perceive it. Maybe you have been blinded by this idea of potential. You're striving all your life to find the true purpose and all and when you die you die and that's it. Or you may turn to be right. Who knows?


heh.. silly again. Why do anything? Foolish skepticism. In order for an athlete to grow strong, he/she must practise, and the same goes for the intellect. The more you study, and seek, the more clarity will come to you. You cant doubt something, without believing something else.



Maybe in your world.


Uhhuh.. This reply should stop right there - that's about as clear a denial of a real world as anything I've heard.


I thought about stating here some things about the emotional character of humans and rationality and all, but I don't want to start yet another discussion...


You right, there shouldnt be a new one till you've done justice to this one.



Anyway, you're being quite selective about which rhetorical tricks to use. You're using tricks like putting all your ideas into nice-sounding words, like your definition of freedom, "true" purpose, and of course calling me a slave, which happens to put a distinctly negative connotation to what you're trying to say. Those are rhetorical tricks, just like my sarcasm is part of my rhetoric. It's difficult to avoid using some rhetoric. You could have used a neutral tone (saying, of course, the same things) but that doesn't add that extra spark to the debate.


Good lord.. where did that come from? Accusing me of tricks now? Just stick with the content. If you have problems with that, ask me to clarify. Stop talking about tone. Read Kant's "on a newly arisen superior tone in philosophy". That will show how ppl who look for tone arent philosophers - they're poets.


Ok, but who's to tell you're not a slave to your human instincts of wanting to see a higher goal in everything?


I'm actually saying I am enslaved to that - its an existential reality. The key is how those needs are met.



I didn't ask you to be my comrade either. At first I was depressed that you, AoA, didn't want to be my friend. Now, however, I've come over that depression and feel reborn again. It's like I found a new reason to live and a weight fell off my shoulders.


Well I've got nothing against you on a personal level of course, but I want to make a point of the nature of true friendship. This forum is the only one on the site that I take this approach.



Ah, the rhetorical trick of intimidation and the fallacy of authority. Why is it that they bring up the same stuff? Cause they, perhaps, didn't live completely isolated from eachother?


You reference to that is the fallacy, not my assent to those texts. Many were connected, but they would not be philosophers if they simply did not think for themselves. Furthermore, even eastern philosophy has many common threads to the west, as in buddhism's doctrine of desire. Universal concepts are discovered, not asserted. Once u start reading, you'll see that too.


Perhaps they were influenced by their upbringing and the intellectual climate of the day. Or maybe it's very human to think that way? A universal norm, hmmm. That's putting a lot of weight to the ideas of a collection of thinkers on a small planet somewhere in the enormously huge universe. Perhaps there are other civilizations in the universe who came up with something completely different. Perhaps there are even people on this planet who came up with something different. Well, are there?


Everyone is influenced, make no mistake. Yet, a philosopher must distance himself from extraneous influences, and yet find his place within them. That's called being apart of the world - something you must learn. You seem to be a dreamer. You have to be integrated to understand the world properly.


END NOTE: Perhaps you have seen some additional use of sarcasm in this post. Forgive me, for I have sinned. I cannot think a thought or write a word without wanting to use the dreaded sarcasm tool. I hope you can forgive me, for I can not forgive myself. Will I enter the gates of Heaven? Nay. It is Hell which is my destiny.

heh.. I try not to pay attention to tone, unless someone blatantly tries to slap me around. If anything, it makes me smile.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Perhaps. However, the ability to be absolved of sin and the means by which that may be obtained is pretty darn central to a religion.


Surely. "indulgences" were instituted in the dark ages, and are not central to the faith - they're a guideline. An indulgence is described as a remission of "temporal punishment" for sins. Now, after a sin, a punishment is not imposed by God or some other means, but is the natural result of sin. A remission of this need not be offered by the church, but by prayer - simply drawing closer to God. As such, the church, as it does with many things, created a guideline to help people understand this. Yet, due to human nature, this was abused.
In the middle ages, church was the "in thing", and alot of people went for security, and hid within its scructire to pull political strings. It's too bad that it happened. The pope recently, i think a few years back, offered a grand apoligy for things like that, and crusades, etc.


And for many centuries people could obtain salvation through the purchase of indulgences.


Ive never heard of it put that way before, but if it was, we'd have to look at the underpinnings of such a claim.


While we'll certainly agree that this was a corrupt practice in every way (at least I think we'll agree, hehe) it was done and it was changed. I'm sure there are plenty of smart guys over at the Vatican who can spin a change on birth control so that it fits with scripture. :lol: Ok, I'm being a little facetious having worked in the political spin game for so long...

Birth control is a sin simply because it holds trust in the self, not in God. The only real thing that a christian needs to do is trust implicitly in God for everything, and live for God. We have to trust God that he will "sort everything out". Its a challenge, but I believe it.

[Eiger]

1) Ive never heard of it put that way before, but if it was, we'd have to look at the underpinnings of such a claim.

2) Birth control is a sin simply because it holds trust in the self, not in God. The only real thing that a christian needs to do is trust implicitly in God for everything, and live for God. We have to trust God that he will "sort everything out". Its a challenge, but I believe it.
1) That's how I learned it in college anyway - but you know how textbooks and professors can be. There's probably some details that got left out. But either way that's the general concept and it seems reasonable that people would shell out big bucks for ultimate salvation, while I don't see them shelling it out for something temporal - my understanding was that the purchase of indulgences got you absolution from your sins and most people bought them when they were relatively near to dying.

2) That's a fair point and makes sense. Not to be snide, but then it seems that God wishes us to have an overpopulated planet...

My only problem with taking this line of reasoning is that it leads us to do little or nothing to solve our problems, trusting in God to sort them out. Kind of like sticking your hand in a bag of poisonous snakes and trusting that you either won't get bit or that God's decided it's your time - or standing in front of a speeding car and not getting out of the way...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

That's a fair point and makes sense. Not to be snide, but then it seems that God wishes us to have an overpopulated planet... [/color]



Well, the earth has capacities for a population of 25 billion people. Suffice it to say, proper allocation of resources would have to be in order. We'd have to go through some maturing as a people before better equilibrium could be met, but we're getting there.


My only problem with taking this line of reasoning is that it leads us to do little or nothing to solve our problems, trusting in God to sort them out. Kind of like sticking your hand in a bag of poisonous snakes and trusting that you either won't get bit or that God's decided it's your time - or standing in front of a speeding car and not getting out of the way...

Yea, there's always that freedom vs determinism thing, I've been looking at it for years. Yet, our own free will actions factor into the equation. If we did nothing, than nothing would happen, but I believe God uses our desires, and indeed gives us desires by placing us in certain contexts to mould us to be the people we are. Id say we could combine the two above concepts.

[Essex]

you have anyway to prove that 25 billion people refrence? I'd love to see a link or something.

[Eiger]

Well, the earth has capacities for a population of 25 billion people. Suffice it to say, proper allocation of resources would have to be in order. We'd have to go through some maturing as a people before better equilibrium could be met, but we're getting there.


Hmm, that 25 billion number seems a little high to me. Especially considering the current population is about 1/5 to 1/4 of that and desertification, salinization, erosion and other effects are reducing arable farmland by significant amounts each year. Unless we can find new technology once our oil supply runs out, currently mechanized and petro-chemical fertilizers will no long keep our food output so high either. Re-distribution will only be one of the many challenges we'll face in such a situation. Luckily, I'll miss the worst of it, but the younger forum goers among us may live to see 15 billion people unless we get some mass famine/new plague or such which surely won't be more pleasant...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Hmm, that 25 billion number seems a little high to me. Especially considering the current population is about 1/5 to 1/4 of that and desertification, salinization, erosion and other effects are reducing arable farmland by significant amounts each year. Unless we can find new technology once our oil supply runs out, currently mechanized and petro-chemical fertilizers will no long keep our food output so high either. Re-distribution will only be one of the many challenges we'll face in such a situation. Luckily, I'll miss the worst of it, but the younger forum goers among us may live to see 15 billion people unless we get some mass famine/new plague or such which surely won't be more pleasant...

As I mentioned, it's all about human choice. If we organize our living conditions better, and employ new technologies to help feed us, we may well stretch that well beyond the 25 billion I outlined. The fallacy many naysayers hold is that they judge the earth's capacity by our present standards and conditions.

[Bartleby]

Hmm, that 25 billion number seems a little high to me. Especially considering the current population is about 1/5 to 1/4 of that and desertification, salinization, erosion and other effects are reducing arable farmland by significant amounts each year.
Partially true, but it's more location specific than a general fact and besides we overproduce as it is and need to slow down production. This does not mean that I am [not a] proponent of zero population growth until we as a species mature.
Unless we can find new technology once our oil supply runs out, currently mechanized and petro-chemical fertilizers will no long keep our food output so high either.
I love to keep up on technology and science in general, and it looks like hybrid bio-diesel engines may be our interim push until fuel cell technology really improves. However on a more interesting note oil may actually be a renewable
resource. I'd heard about this a while ago, but I figure the forum goers might find this interesting so here's one of many readily available links (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645).
Re-distribution will only be one of the many challenges we'll face in such a situation. Luckily, I'll miss the worst of it, but the younger forum goers among us may live to see 15 billion people unless we get some mass famine/new plague or such which surely won't be more pleasant...Population density usually evokes some population thinning tragedy. Life finds it's own balance. The response is a bit cold, but not unfounded.

Like I said, I am in favor of zero population growth, but that's because as a species we are on the whole too selfish in my opinion to cope with that large a population and be good stewards to the earth and all her inhabitants. I can't compel anyone to accept or reject that opinion, it's up to the individual to decide.
While I think the tenet's of Christianity and any other religion is up for interpretation (Example: "An eye for an eye" {King James} and "Do unto others" {One of the Apostles... Matthew?} are interpretations of the same principle)
It would be unreasonable that you expect or even ask a religious organization to change doctrine solely to effect a change in the world if they don't believe the new doctrine to be more accurate. The fact of the matter is that there are plenty of religions and denominations of Christianity which do not determine the use of birth control to be a sin.
The religion is not your problem, it echoes the belief of those following it. Your problem is that those individuals or their culture believe it is a sin, because if they did not they would find another church or disregard the tenet. Your efforts would be better spent changing the individual's and the culture's perception of birth control, not changing the religion's.
The religion will follow if it makes sense in light of reinterpretation based on the realities of the world at the current time. In my experience the church is more reactive than it is proactive in that it waits for society to press the issue or ask the question and then the church does it's best to figure out how it relates to the doctrine.

[Leon[fp]]

Good lord.. where did that come from? Accusing me of tricks now? Just stick with the content. If you have problems with that, ask me to clarify. Stop talking about tone. Read Kant's "on a newly arisen superior tone in philosophy". That will show how ppl who look for tone arent philosophers - they're poets.

Accusing you of tricks? Yes. The tricks are there for you to see. You brought along all those great minds not without a reason I guess. It must have been to intimidate me (which would be the rhetorical trick of intimidation, a fallacy known as argumentum ad baculum) and/or to proof that your view is right since great minds have professed it (which would be the fallacy of authority or argumentum ad verecundiam).

However, I don't mind since everyone uses rhetorical tricks in debate. Unless, of course, the tricks are fallacies, but then it's up to me to point them out (or up to you to point mine out of course). There are tricks which aren't fallacies, of course, like the way you choose words. You will use rhetoric, it's inescapable. We're communicating with eachother while each of us is trying to make some points. Rhetoric will play a role and will be used in such communications, since we're simply not talking purely with reason (however much we might want that to). Other factors come into play such as emotion, our talents (or lack thereof) in communication, our feelings, you name it. I was talking about tone since you made clear you didn't like my sarcasm. Just like rhetoric, tone is inescapable.

Now that we've resolved that issue I can try to reply to your content, as difficult though it may be, seeing as how it is supported by the greatest minds in human history and that they have found the universal truth. Come to think of it; if your idea is so universal and so absolute, why doesn't everyone, including me, instantly, or eventually, agree with what you say? There are so called great minds (great minds in the view of the general public, not in your view of course) which also don't believe in what you say. How come? Isn't it so that a universal and absolute truth must be all-know, unchanging and crystal clear to everyone who inhabits this perfect universe?

Anyway, I will be replying to the content later. I do have a test in a few days...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']Accusing you of tricks? Yes. The tricks are there for you to see. You brought along all those great minds not without a reason I guess. It must have been to intimidate me (which would be the rhetorical trick of intimidation, a fallacy known as argumentum ad baculum) and/or to proof that your view is right since great minds have professed it (which would be the fallacy of authority or argumentum ad verecundiam).


Ok Leon, when I quote from texts, or refer to a text, it is to back up my point. To date, I am the only poster here who uses sources, perhaps with the exception of Eiger, to back up his points. I even go so far as to copy and paste my own work for you. Mostly around these forums, people air opinions, and simply step out of the show. The fallacy would enter the picture if and only if my arguments had no substance, or wrongly referrred to the sources.


However, I don't mind since everyone uses rhetorical tricks in debate. Unless, of course, the tricks are fallacies, but then it's up to me to point them out (or up to you to point mine out of course). There are tricks which aren't fallacies, of course, like the way you choose words. You will use rhetoric, it's inescapable.


Ok. I have used rhetoric in my posts, Ill admit. Yet, one need not use rhetoric by necessity. In Kant's texts, there is not one single ounce of rhetoric. He offers that rhetoric may be useful to help bring people to a more refined understanding - like feeding babies pablum before they grow into adult foods. In his texts, he uses zero amount of rhetoric - thats why most people cannot understand him, and also why you couldnt understand me before, since i was speaking technically. I've eased up with some rhetoric now, in the hopes that some of what I say may be better understood.


We're communicating with eachother while each of us is trying to make some points. Rhetoric will play a role and will be used in such communications, since we're simply not talking purely with reason (however much we might want that to). Other factors come into play such as emotion, our talents (or lack thereof) in communication, our feelings, you name it. I was talking about tone since you made clear you didn't like my sarcasm. Just like rhetoric, tone is inescapable.


Well, let's get as far away from tone as possible by better defining whats at stake.


Now that we've resolved that issue I can try to reply to your content, as difficult though it may be, seeing as how it is supported by the greatest minds in human history and that they have found the universal truth. Come to think of it; if your idea is so universal and so absolute, why doesn't everyone, including me, instantly, or eventually, agree with what you say? There are so called great minds (great minds in the view of the general public, not in your view of course) which also don't believe in what you say.
How come? Isn't it so that a universal and absolute truth must be all-know, unchanging and crystal clear to everyone who inhabits this perfect universe?


Yes, well spoken. Indeed, there are an array of philosophers who are not metaphysicians like me. Yet, those philosophers continually stub their toes against the concepts I give assent to. My thesis touches on this very topic, as my principle author wants to dispose of metaphysics once and for all, but he (admittedly so) does it by force of will, and not by discovery. Once you read Kant, and hopefully the ancients as well, there is no going back. The reason we live in a relativistic age (as hinted my my name), is because of a willed rejection of universality of truth. Further, the reason we live in a confused age is because truth cannot be created - it is rather discovered. The problem here is that we yearn for stability - it is part of our essence. When this stability is treated with skepticism and dogmatism, we create a confused era.

[Bhs Crew]

I leave for one day, Eiger and AoA get into a discussion, and suddenly four pages pop up.

']The crucial point is that making one independent from the state through less social security makes one dependent on corporations to give you what you need to live. In essence you're more and more turning towards slavery if you live in a capitalist society where there's no social security. And when you live in a democratic state, it's a bit difficult to speak about being dependent on the state, since the state is chosen by the people. A corporation is an unaccountable, undemocratic organization which means being dependent on them is much worse than being dependent on the state - a democratic state that is, since being dependent on a tyrannical state is just as bad.
I fail to see how me getting control of my own money makes me dependent on some large corporation. You're going to have to explain that one to me.


I'm not sure whether that's the reason you give money to the state. The way I see taxes, social security and all is it's a substitute for the cooperation we had in our early days as humans. When people still lived in small tribes (think Native Americans) the people would help each other and defend each other from threats coming from outside. It would be a little strange if every person in that tribe would say they are an individual who doesn't want to contribute to their tribe since they can manage themselves. It would mean they would quickly die out because they couldn't cooperate in a hostile climate.
Cooperation is required. However its not called cooperation when it is forced. I'm not saying that no one should cooperate with anyone, I'm just saying that people should cooperate because they choose to rather then being forced to cooperate or the IRS takes everything you own and throws you in jail.


As societies grow larger the sense of direct cooperation may fade, but this can be substituted with state-driven programs like social security, a state managed army defending the people etcetera. To let that work people must contribute to their society through taxes. It's not about you being able to manage your own money, it's about you making your contribution to your society.
Why does cooperation fade? People cooperate with other people all the time in this society. It's how we accomplish things. I have no problem with contributing to society, I have a problem with being forced to pay money to support programs, wars, etc. that I don't agree with. I definitely have a problem of giving money to a social security fund so they can pay it back to me later, providing I live that long.


The problem is, these governments tend to forget that they're there for the people and work more in the interest of a small elite and against the interest of the general population. However, the people have the power to vote for a party which does work in their interest. But the two ruling parties and the media have made sure with the use of propaganda (either consciously or not - the effect is there) that people won't even consider voting for a third party. So you're stuck with two parties generally working in the interest of a very small portion of the population.

Having more parties wouldn't help anything. Right now because of the low party loyalty I often find myself voting for a candidate rather then a party. If we had more parties I would still be voting for an individual candidate. This isn't a parliamentary system where each party is a giant bureaucracy and party loyalty is almost essential. In the US the parties are mearly collections of people and candidates. Also each state's parties are different from each other and the national parties.

[Eiger]

As I mentioned, it's all about human choice. If we organize our living conditions better, and employ new technologies to help feed us, we may well stretch that well beyond the 25 billion I outlined. The fallacy many naysayers hold is that they judge the earth's capacity by our present standards and conditions.A few quick and interesting links: http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop/index.html (http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop/index.html)

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/9B-World-Population-2070.htm

The world population around the time of Christ is estimated to be between 170 and 400 million (3rd link). The current world population is 6.43 billion (according to the clock in the 1st link). I remember back in college we were taught that it was 4.8 billion. In grad school the number we learned was 5.2 billion. The population in 1950 was 2.55 billion (2nd link). In 1980 it was 4.4 billion, a 2.2 billion increase in 30 years. Now we've got another 2 billion from 1980 to now (24 years).

By 2050 it's projected to grow to 9 billion according to census estimates - which is interesting in that there's apparently a declining growth rate beginning in the mid 1960's. This is contrary to this link from the Population Connection showing a somewhat exponential increase continuing and an estimate of 10 billion in 2050: http://www.populationconnection.org/Reports_Publications/Reports/report209.html See the graph showing which shows growth as it relates to developing countries vs. industrial ones. The United Nations uses a more reasonable high medium and low projection for estimates world population in 2050 to be a little over 7 billion, 8.9 billion, or about 10.5 billion: http://www.unfpa.org/swp/1999/pdf/facts.pdf

Apparently, the low of 7 billion is estimated assuming that AIDS remains unchecked in Asia, Latin America, and Africa. http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/text10-9-2003-46284.asp

This link should cheer the anti-contraception folks - Bush is on your side that's for sure. Add another reason not to re-elect him: http://www.planetwire.org/details/2974

From the fourth link at the top it appears that population may tail off and stop growing altogether in 2070 and decrease from there.

Anyway, gotta go - had much more to add on environmental effects so I'll quickly copy and paste some fun facts (these are probably exaggerated a little considering their Population Connection source, but they are familiar and probably not too far off if off at all):

Increasing population growth puts enormous pressure on the environment. Every day, we use more resources, damage more of the earth, and generate more waste. This makes it increasingly difficult to meet people’s needs and improve our quality of life.
· Six million acres of prime farmland – an area the size of Vermont – were lost in the U.S. alone between 1982 and 1992. Four of those six million acres were lost to urban and suburban expansion. The other 2 million acres were lost through erosion caused by deforestation, unsustainable farming practices, and animal over-grazing.

· Fresh water is essential to health, economic development, and life itself. With increasing numbers of people, the amount of fresh water available to each person decreases. Only 0.3% of the water on the planet is available for human use. Due to mismanagement, over 40% of the groundwater in the U.S. is contaminated by industrial, agricultural, and household pollution, making it extremely difficult and costly to purify.

· As human population increases, the diversity and number of plants and animals decreases. We lose one or more entire species of animal or plant life every 20 minutes – some 27,000 species a year. This is a rate and scale of extinction that has not occurred in 65 million years.

· The global emission of carbon dioxide has quadrupled since 1950, largely from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers say this "greenhouse gas" causes global warming and disruption in weather patterns.

· 1.8 billion people live in 40 countries with critically low levels of forest cover. By 2025, this number could nearly triple to 4.6 billion.

· One U.S. citizen consumes about 30 times as much as a citizen of India. If everyone on Earth lived like the average North American, it would require four more earths to provide all the material and energy she or he currently uses.

· It takes 23 times more water to produce 1 ton of beef than it does to produce 1 ton of grain. Only about 2.5 billion people could be fed on a diet comparable to a developed country diet, in which approximately 35% of calories are derived from animal sources.

Considering this country's recent (last 25 years) treatment of the UN it's quite unlikely that we'll be redistributing significant amounts of our resources in the direction of other countries anytime soon. By that I mean I don't see the world organizing its living conditions better. So far throughout the last few hundred years we've managed to increase food producing technology and frustrate the Malthusians, so perhaps that will continue. I certainly hope so...

But I am curious as to where you got the 25 billion carrying capacity number...

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Eiger, I don't see the world moving to make sweeping changes either, but they must be made to support more people. As for the 25 mil figure, I've heard that while talking to a biology grad student a few years back, so I can't provide any sources ATM, or prove its credibility - it was spoken more as a principle. I do however think that it's attainable under the right conditions.

[Booms]

Eiger, I don't see the world moving to make sweeping changes either, but they must be made to support more people. As for the 25 mil figure, I've heard that while talking to a biology grad student a few years back, so I can't provide any sources ATM, or prove its credibility - it was spoken more as a principle. I do however think that it's attainable under the right conditions.

And this is after you critique the forum-goers for not using sources?

[Eiger]

Eiger, I don't see the world moving to make sweeping changes either, but they must be made to support more people. As for the 25 mil figure, I've heard that while talking to a biology grad student a few years back, so I can't provide any sources ATM, or prove its credibility - it was spoken more as a principle. I do however think that it's attainable under the right conditions.
Perhaps it is attainable. If it does happen though, I'm just glad I'll be long dead by then.

[Essex]

hehe good one booms :)

I must say though that anything is attainable under the right condtions, under the right conditions I could have been a slim, rich, straight man but that's not the case here or when it comes to the worlds population :)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

And this is after you critique the forum-goers for not using sources?

Would you rather I made up an answer? You can't mark me for posting capriciously. If I stated that I believed that my car would last for 7 years, could I prove that just the same? If you want proof, how bout this link?

http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/jecAAAS.nr.html


The quote to look for is as follows:

"The fact is that no single number exists to answer `how many people can the earth support?' because human carrying capacity is dynamic and uncertain," he notes. "The capacity depends on natural constraints and human choices, which are not captured by the ecological notions of carrying capacity we use for nonhumans. Instead, we must consider in our calculations the interactions of such constraints as food, water and livable land and choices about economies, environment, values and politics."

Don't kick dirt in my face plz.

[Booms]

Would you rather I made up an answer? You can't mark me for posting capriciously. If I stated that I believed that my car would last for 7 years, could I prove that just the same? If you want proof, how bout this link?

http://www.rockefeller.edu/pubinfo/jecAAAS.nr.html


The quote to look for is as follows:

"The fact is that no single number exists to answer `how many people can the earth support?' because human carrying capacity is dynamic and uncertain," he notes. "The capacity depends on natural constraints and human choices, which are not captured by the ecological notions of carrying capacity we use for nonhumans. Instead, we must consider in our calculations the interactions of such constraints as food, water and livable land and choices about economies, environment, values and politics."

Don't kick dirt in my face plz.

You presented the information as fact without a reliable source. Even now, with that quote, it is said nowhere that the Earth could even possibly support 25 billion people. So as it stands you were essentially making up an answer.

Well, the earth has capacities for a population of 25 billion people. Suffice it to say, proper allocation of resources would have to be in order. We'd have to go through some maturing as a people before better equilibrium could be met, but we're getting there.

[Bartleby]

· Six million acres of prime farmland – an area the size of Vermont – were lost in the U.S. alone between 1982 and 1992. Four of those six million acres were lost to urban and suburban expansion. The other 2 million acres were lost through erosion caused by deforestation, unsustainable farming practices, and animal over-grazing.

· Fresh water is essential to health, economic development, and life itself. With increasing numbers of people, the amount of fresh water available to each person decreases. Only 0.3% of the water on the planet is available for human use. Due to mismanagement, over 40% of the groundwater in the U.S. is contaminated by industrial, agricultural, and household pollution, making it extremely difficult and costly to purify.

· As human population increases, the diversity and number of plants and animals decreases. We lose one or more entire species of animal or plant life every 20 minutes – some 27,000 species a year. This is a rate and scale of extinction that has not occurred in 65 million years.

· The global emission of carbon dioxide has quadrupled since 1950, largely from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers say this "greenhouse gas" causes global warming and disruption in weather patterns.

· 1.8 billion people live in 40 countries with critically low levels of forest cover. By 2025, this number could nearly triple to 4.6 billion.

· One U.S. citizen consumes about 30 times as much as a citizen of India. If everyone on Earth lived like the average North American, it would require four more earths to provide all the material and energy she or he currently uses.

· It takes 23 times more water to produce 1 ton of beef than it does to produce 1 ton of grain. Only about 2.5 billion people could be fed on a diet comparable to a developed country diet, in which approximately 35% of calories are derived from animal sources.

Wow those claims reek of junk science held out as fact. I'd be curious where I could get a link and their sources. Some of those claims were obviously junk science, but I'd like a chance to verify some of the other "facts".

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Booms, as I used the illustration of judging the life expectancy of a car, so I can say that I'd surmise the capacity for 25 mil. I'll take the correction however if you want to get that technical. Mark this day on the calendar, AoA made a technical boo-boo :cheesy:.

[Booms]

Its not that you just screwed up a number, its that you make the assertion that just about everyone on this forum doesn't use sources to back up their information and then you casually slip a number in as fact without any sources to back it up.

Not only was it arrogant of you to claim that only you (and Eiger) used sources: "To date, I am the only poster here who uses sources, perhaps with the exception of Eiger, to back up his points," but then you throw in some number (which was important regarding the argument) which you just seemingly came up with off the top of your head. When I call you on it you say that I'm "kicking dirt in your face" and give me a link to a page which only says that the amount of people the Earth could sustain depends on human choices and natural constraints.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Its not that you just screwed up a number, its that you make the assertion that just about everyone on this forum doesn't use sources to back up their information


I have no problem in stating that, as it's the truth. I certainly have not seen you back up anything you've said, save with sarcasm.


Not only was it arrogant of you to claim that only you (and Eiger) used sources: "To date, I am the only poster here who uses sources, perhaps with the exception of Eiger, to back up his points,"


lol.. I guess if its arrogant to state the obvious, there's little hope for humanity :uhhuh:.


but then you throw in some number (which was important regarding the argument) which you just seemingly came up with off the top of your head. When I call you on it you say that I'm "kicking dirt in your face" and give me a link to a page which only says that the amount of people the Earth could sustain depends on human choices and natural constraints.

heh.. Just looking for the opportunity to jump on me? I posted earlier that I got the figure from a friend whos a grad student in biology (yet another marked example of your negligence in reading my texts). I quoted that other bit becuse the very nature of the statement couldn't be "proven" (as the posting habits can be). Now, your pathetic dig at me compares this with my clearly observable fact of member's posting habits. These posting habits can be proven with surety with a few clicks of the mouse. My figure of 25mil is something that's not directly observable, and thus cannot be used in comparison.
Would it be better if I said that "I've been told by a reliable source that the world can sustain 25 Million people"? If so, I'll correct that technicality if it's that important to you :lol:.

And yes, you were kicking dirt, as anyone who makes as big a fuss as that about something so small - and indeed inconsistent, cannot be doing anything other than that.

[Leon[fp]]

A few small observations:

I posted earlier that I got the figure from a friend whos a grad student in biology

That doesn't add any validity to your claim. You only tell about how you came up with the claim, so it's informative, but it's not a proof of any kind. To let it be a proof you must tell what the student was exactly saying, where he got it from , and how that source where he got it from demonstrated how 25 bil. could live on earth.

the world can sustain 25 Million people"?

Why do you keep on calling it 25 million instead of the original billion? Is that another of your rhetorical tricks? ;)

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']
That doesn't add any validity to your claim. You only tell about how you came up with the claim, so it's informative, but it's not a proof of any kind.


A few small observations? You should observe the last post better - the nature of the statement was not a proof.


Why do you keep on calling it 25 million instead of the original billion? Is that another of your rhetorical tricks? ;)

One grows tired of responding to memeaningless tripe by people who are more interested in attacking people, rather than subject matter - even I get tired sometimes and can garble my words - 25 mil less than the population of canada lol.

F-ing rediculous, all this AoA bashing is really :cheesy:.

[Essex]

AoA you have to understand though, this is just slightly funny, for a long time you have been the most prolific when it comes to providing sources, suggesting texts, ect. With the exception of Eiger of course.

Now you did not do that, you have to understand that for all the people who you have given facts, and links, and texts, and what not too this is the one time where they can have some actually footing in saying "you are wrong"

its not kicking dirt in the face so much as finally realizing that the things you ocassional point out in others as being a fallacy (not giving sources) is something you yourself have done.


It'd be like discovering Martha Stewart has a really messy room somewhere in her house, you ignore all the pretty ones and go for the really messy one and sorta laugh about it

[AgeOfAbnegation]

Essex, I admitted I made a boo-boo in the way I worded the blurb on the 25 billion capacity thing. Then, I've got Booms and Leon chasing me down, not letting it go even when I explained clearly how miniscule this thing really is. As I told Booms, you can't compare my statement of posting habits with a guestimate on theoretical notion. The only mistake I made was wording that properly, and even after admitting my error of doing so, I'm still getting kicked around, so yes, I believe I'm justified in calling it "dirt in the face".

heh.. as you and I well know, most people are either AoA supporters, or AoA detractors - there really is no middle ground lol.. But for the record, I can get along with an AoA detractor no problem off these forums, and Booms may be in my DnD game, so it's no big deal. As I told y'all, it's all about content around here. So, if I apologized for a technical error, let's get on with it, mmmk?

[Leon[fp]]

Then, I've got Booms and Leon chasing me down, not letting it go even when I explained clearly how miniscule this thing really is.

Chasing you down? Well, if I reread my post it might have seemed so, but certainly the thing about 25 million/billion wasn't a serious critique. I added a smilie to be sure you noticed that. The other thing was in response to you saying you got it from a grad student. I guess I should've noticed that that wasn't at all intended to defend your position or proof something, but just to explain how you came up with that idea.

[Leon[fp]]

Ok Leon, when I quote from texts, or refer to a text, it is to back up my point.

I'm sure you do, but not in that particular instance to which I was referring. Analyzing the rhetoric is ambiguous, but we can at least try to identify some. Here's your original statement: "Just to give you a heads up, you'll be battling against the greatest minds of the last 3000 years." Now, you did not refer to any text. Maybe that was your intention, but you didn't do so here. Firstly, you were using words with the effect of intimidating the opponent, me in this case. "battling" and "greatest minds" can hardly be called neutral terms. The additional timeframe of 3000 years is to add emphasis to the daunting task of trying to refute anything of those ideas. Secondly, referring to "greatest minds" doesn't add anything to an argument, since it's the content which counts and not the person who said it. So that's the reason I thought I saw the two fallacies (intimidation and authority).

Mostly around these forums, people air opinions, and simply step out of the show.

Well, I haven't yet stepped out of the show. Also, maybe I did, but I don't think I just aired my opinion and nothing more. Furthermore, I would like to add that referring to sources isn't in itself an argument. It's just adding additional text to your statements. If the source includes arguments, then you've added arguments; if not, then not. Using sources can be used as proof when you have a statement like Bush said he would do this and you refer to a news source which says just that.

The case is different if you say something like: scepticism if false, here's the text to proof that's so. You might as well have just copied and pasted the text and never even said that you were using sources, since it's the arguments in the text that count and not at all the fact that you were referring to a source. Note that I didn't say it was wrong to use sources; it just doesn't add to the strength of your case.

Yes, well spoken. Indeed, there are an array of philosophers who are not metaphysicians like me. Yet, those philosophers continually stub their toes against the concepts I give assent to. My thesis touches on this very topic, as my principle author wants to dispose of metaphysics once and for all, but he (admittedly so) does it by force of will, and not by discovery. Once you read Kant, and hopefully the ancients as well, there is no going back. The reason we live in a relativistic age (as hinted my my name), is because of a willed rejection of universality of truth. Further, the reason we live in a confused age is because truth cannot be created - it is rather discovered. The problem here is that we yearn for stability - it is part of our essence. When this stability is treated with skepticism and dogmatism, we create a confused era.

Firstly, isn't your set of thoughts dogmatic in the sense that you claim there to be one universal truth and that it's our purpose to discover it?

Now I have to learn for my test again, but before I leave I'd just like to say that last night I started reading a bit of Nietzsche and agreed with him on some points. There's a site which explains the ideas in beyong good and evil, here it is (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/nietzs.htm) if you care to read it. Also, I know about Plato's cave and the world of ideas, if that's what you referring to with the ancients. Suffice to say I didn't agree. These remarks are all too concise but I have to go now.

[Eiger]

I leave for one day, Eiger and AoA get into a discussion, and suddenly four pages pop up.


I think that's Leon rather than me you're referring to, hehe. Strange, but true.

[Eiger]

Wow those claims reek of junk science held out as fact. I'd be curious where I could get a link and their sources. Some of those claims were obviously junk science, but I'd like a chance to verify some of the other "facts".

Yup, I said as much and gave the source which can be accessed from one of the links in that post - though they don't give an ultimate source. However, the numbers are close enough to get the concept across. I've seen lots of similar ones over the years, so am reasonably comfortable with them. The point is just to note that there's serious enviro degradation going on which is reducing human carrying capacity.

[Booms]

AoA: I was just frustrated about you saying that no one else uses sources. I wouldn't consider it a hole in your argument in the slightest. I still don't agree with you, but I haven't participated in this thread at all and I don't really feel like jumping in, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

I was just...irritated, thats all.

[AgeOfAbnegation]

']Now I have to learn for my test again, but before I leave I'd just like to say that last night I started reading a bit of Nietzsche and agreed with him on some points. There's a site which explains the ideas in beyong good and evil, here it is (http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/introser/nietzs.htm) if you care to read it.


I'd rather read the whole text, which I hold in my hand now. I have a collection of his works, including the best translation of beyond good and evil. Nietzsche brings up some valid points, and I'm happy that he critiqued an age of hypocracy. That being said however, he offers no viable solution, except his philosophy of "will to power", which can be compared to a 3 year old taking a temper tantrum because someone stole his lollypop.
His preface begins as "Suppose truth be a woman.." - one who does not allow herself to be won. So, a careful reading of his text reveals that he admits to truth, but only finds the reception of truth to be problematic. It is this existential relationship to universal truth that Nietzsche deals with, not its mere existence. It's only his followers who have incorrectly interpreted his texts, and that's sad for them really. Nietzsche was a good thinker, but he erred in his methodology. He should have spent more time on Kant's texts.


Also, I know about Plato's cave and the world of ideas, if that's what you referring to with the ancients. Suffice to say I didn't agree. These remarks are all too concise but I have to go now.

In truth, I'm not a follower of Plato in all senses. Plato brought forth some wonderful speculative notions, and helped make the break from mythology that Parmenides began a few hundred years before him. His cave analogy in the 7th book of his Republic is however, an excellent illustration of a normative model for enlightenment. Plato's texts brought forth raw ore, that was exquisitely refined by Aristotle. If I can be considered an adherent to any philosophers, I would say Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Scheler, Cassirer, and Dionysius are in my view great philosophers, but I also can see merit in Nietzsche's writings for instance, so long as they are taken in perspective of the big picture (this big picture can be visible not only by means of metaphysics, but of also dead ends in argumentations).
But in reference to your 2nd last sentence, I would find it problematic to judge a text at first reading - you may not agree now, but you really should stay with the texts a bit longer. In truth, my library consists of the panorama of thinking, not just texts by figureheads like Kant.

[Havard]

Ah, the conservation debate. So many studies, who to believe?

"The disturbing, ongoing pattern of famine and drought in Africa and Asia has added credibility to the argument that the earth is approaching a point at which it will not be able to continue to feed the 'teeming masses' of the planet. Yet by any analysis, this is a time of agricultural abundance unprecedented in the history of the world. Economist Thomas De Gregori observes that 'if there is hunger in the world-and so there is, in abundance, even in wealthy countries-it is because of maldistribution of food, not insufficient global production.20 'Ten times as many people died of famine in the last quarter of the 19th century as have died of famine in the third quarter of the 20th century, despite our much larger present population and the massive engineered famines in Cambodia during the 1970s.21

An examination of 15 representative agricultural commodities (barley, broilers, carrots, cattle, corn, cotton, eggs, milk, oats, oranges, rice, sorghum, soybeans, wheat, and wool) reveals that real prices in the United States dropped by an average of 38 percent from 1980 to 1990. When indexed to wages, the price of those foodstuffs has declined 83 percent since 1950.22 Clearly, if the earth's agricultural productivity were being outpaced by voracious demand for food as a result of the population explosion, agricultural prices would be rising sharply rather than falling dramatically as the data indicate.

...

Moreover, a great deal of the world's cropland is underused or cultivated using low-yield technologies and practices similar to those used in this country in 1910. Obviously, agricultural productivity will skyrocket as high-yield technologies continue to advance throughout the developing world.

Yet even those expansive limits are not fixed. Agricultural history is largely defined as the transformation of land unsuited for cultivation into productive cropland. Nobel laureate Theodore Schultz observes that 'the original soils of western Europe, except for the Po Valley and some parts of England and France, were in general very poor in quality. As farmland, these soils are now highly productive. A substantial part of the productivity of farmland is manmade by investments in land improvements.'27 Political economist David Osterfeld points out that 'much of the American Midwest was forest and swampland. No account of arable land in, say, 1800 would have included it. Now, after it has been cleared and drained, it is among the most fertile lands in the world. And the elimination of the tsetse fly would open up to cultivation about 200 million hectares of African land, an area larger than the total cropland in the United States.'28 Productive farmland is not some sort of finite given; it is, instead, a function of agricultural skill and technology, two 'resources' that have been expanding rapidly over the centuries and exponentially over the past 80 years."

Excerpts from "The Growing Abundance of Natural Resources", Jerry Taylor
http://www.cato.org/pubs/chapters/marlib21.html

[Bartleby]

Hey Eiger, junk scientists have proved time and again that if you just make some asinine statement like "x is the cause of y," base it on anecdotal data (if any at all) regardless of whether the relative risk is greater than 2.0 or less than 0.5, and just keep repeating said false statement as if it were scientific fact, eventually everyone will believe it.

The world is flat, being out in cold whether will lead to a cold and if you break a mirror you'll get 7 years bad luck. Might as well believe in them too, because they're based on as much and equally reliable data.

[Bartleby]

Seriously though, I am a huge proponent of the need to protect the earth while balancing the needs of human society, however junk science has proven time and again to hinder this, because their "studies" don't utilize the scientific method, instead preferring to use weak statistical associations from biased tests. Again just saying it isn't proof, you have to prove it.

[Havard]

Seriously though, I am a huge proponent of the need to protect the earth while balancing the needs of human society, however junk science has proven time and again to hinder this, because their "studies" don't utilize the scientific method, instead preferring to use weak statistical associations from biased tests. Again just saying it isn't proof, you have to prove it.

Is anyone against protecting the earth? I mean, aside from Exxon and Haliburton :uhhuh:

[Essex]

Is anyone against protecting the earth? I mean, aside from Exxon and Haliburton :uhhuh:
no but I think several people take the "humans first" line of thinking very very extreme.

What about the drilling in ANWAR I'm curious to hear your opinons on that. Of course I'm against it, what do you guys think?

[Bartleby]

I'd agree with you there Essex, but then I don't think those people really care about conservation.

[Eiger]

Seriously though, I am a huge proponent of the need to protect the earth while balancing the needs of human society, however junk science has proven time and again to hinder this, because their "studies" don't utilize the scientific method, instead preferring to use weak statistical associations from biased tests. Again just saying it isn't proof, you have to prove it.
As I said those were just what I had found on a population oriented website by a proponent organization - and I put in some qualifiers noting it should be taken with a grain of salt. If you want to get into better stuff, I can most certainly comply. I've got an wildlife biology BS and a master's in environmental policy, so I'm quite comfortable in this arena. I've got a bunch of stuff to deal with this morning, but I'll do an Eiger style post later to give you the skinny.

[Rilitar]

Is anyone against protecting the earth? I mean, aside from Exxon and Haliburton :uhhuh:

Well! I just wasted 2 hours reading through this entire forum. And d*mn...ou guys have a lot of opinions.

Im not gonna jump into the religious debate. I have my own opinions and know a fair bit about how religion as a whole has come to its present state but most likely Ill only end up knowing enough to dig myself a hole.

As for the conservation thing I quoted above, I would say that most likely, everyone is for protecting/saving the enviroment, the problem is cost-effectiveness. Already we are beginning to see problems with the rise of alternative fuel sources, as ethanol is refined/derived (dont know the process, and dont really care) primarily from corn, which in turn is causing a higher demand for a fairly standard supply, in turn causing prices to soar on things like cereal and bread. Another problem with the alternative fuel sources is that AFAIK ethanol doesn't produce less CO2 than gasoline so really all its doing is attempting to put a bandaid on the oil problem. In all honesty I believe that the US could solve its problem with oil by decreasing the reliance on foreign oil and reopening the oil wells and refineries we already have. Again though, the problem is cost. Also, Im not entirely sure what the US' situation is with how much oil is stil left unmined (yes I know, wrong term but idc, dont pick at my terminology =]) but I would guess that what we havnt yet harvested would cost a lot of money to get to, and then the "green" people would be jumping all over the place as we'd be using up natural resources.

Anywhoz, Ima get off of that topic, if any of you have some better info as to wha the US has in the way of unharvested oil or the CO2 emissions on ethanol feel free to gimme a link, cause all my assumptions are unfounded and im too lazy to look it up right now.

Another thing I wanted to say, this is going back a few pages, about smoking pot to "escape reality". I forget who said that. But anyways, we are human. Humans get stressed, it comes with life. Every person has their own way of relieving stress and doing something that allows them to take their mind of off their problems for a few hours of peace and have some "me time". The way i see it, pot can be considered one of these stress relievers. If someone wants to take a few hours off and smoke a joint then I would say go ahead, as after their high theyll more than likely come back feeling better about their problems and about themselves and be able to tackle their problems with that much more energy. Sure, its proven to be unhealthy for you. But then again, so has stress, the difference is just that "stress" its a very broad and abstract term for anything that troubles you, so it is difficult to measure just how much stress or what kind of stress is bad for you. For now though, I'd say hit the bong, trip out, and take a break, then when you get back to reality youll feel a bit better.

[spadron]

Wow! That's some impressive threadromancy.

[Rilitar]

yeah i bet, how old was this thing?

[spadron]

yeah i bet, how old was this thing?

4 years :grin:

[DrScience]

old thread is ooold