1. So, first trimester, not a "person", got it.
2. Where/when does the personhood occur?
1. Your definition, not mine, but OK for now.
2. Many Catholics say a sperm has personhood, to justify the whole anti-contraception thing. Some people say upon fertilization. Others say when the fetus has a nervous system. Still others peg it when the baby can live independently of the mother. Take your pick, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.NOTE: After looking at your edit, I agree that a consistent legal defintion would be nice, and first trimester seems as good to me as any. It'll cause all kinds of "how is 1 day before different from one day after!" arguments, but any definition automatically creates a line somewhere.
1. So, first trimester, not a "person", got it.
2. Where/when does the personhood occur?1. Your definition, not mine, but OK for now.
2. Many Catholics say a sperm has personhood, to justify the whole anti-contraception thing. Some people say upon fertilization. Others say when the fetus has a nervous system. Still others peg it when the baby can live independently of the mother. Take your pick, but don't expect everyone to agree with you.
As I edited above, I actually don't care what individuals ideas of when personhood starts is, I want a darn legal definition, instead of the mixed messages we have now. Stop charging people with murder of unborn lifeforms, if legally you have to be born to be a person. Stop allowing late term abortions (except when the mother's life is in danger, trolley issue) if birth is not required for personhood. Courts pick one and stick to it.
If we could take someone never convicted of any crime, but with, say, a 90% certainty of raping an average of ten people before being caught, are you actually telling me you'd support MURDERING that person?What if I turn into a fire-breathing dragon tomorrow and destroy Manhattan through no fault of my own by accidentally breathing fire? Your scenario is equally unlikely. My response, therefore, is "not applicable."
Let me get this straight...you try to prove your point with a hypothetical situation, then dismiss mine as "not applicable" because it's hypothetical? It's still a valid corollary of your position, but I'd avoid dealing with it if I were you, too.
I just don't think this position meets your normally very high standards for rigorous thought.If by "normally very high standard" you mean "happens to coincide with your opinion," there's nothing for me to say here.
Except I don't. All you're doing here is sidestepping my arguments in favor of attacking a "dare to disagree with you" strawman. As it happens, I do sometimes disagree with you, but I respect your opinion and often learn from you.
If I didn't know better, I'd honestly think someone hijacked your account. If you're too angry or convinced of your own infallibility for that to give you pause, then I have nothing more to say.
Edit: Seriously, suggesting someone's criteria for rigorous thought is "whether you agree with me" is insulting, plain and simple. Where did that come from?
Another question I have though (not necessarily for you Kirth, if you don't believe this) - I don't understand how people can be pro death penalty while at the same time being for a smaller government, citing (e.g.) that they don't trust the government to run a health care service, or don't want the government intruding on their lives. It seems to me that if the government can't be trusted to provide health care, why should it be trusted with the power of life and death over its citizens via the criminal justice system?
I can only speak for myself here. I personally adhere to the "non-harm" critereon for interference. If I choose to dress up like a clown or run around the beach naked or go gambling or start a church, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, the government ought to leave me the hell alone. If I'm raping, killing, or stealing from someone else, that's where my rights infringe on those of others, and a government exists to regulate those cases.
This is why I mentioned that I want prosecutors to face more than absolutely nothing in terms of messing up a case. Not that I want prosecutors killed, mind.All of them, it's the only way to be sure. ;)
I was just thinking. If murder (defined as the premeditated killing of an innocent person) is punished by execution, then who gets executed when it is found that the state has got it wrong and executed an innocent person? Is it the executioner, the attorney, the judge, the jury or the initial police investigator? Or some combination of the above?Prosecutors that willfully falsify evidence in a murder case? I got no problem with them suffering the same fate they abused their power to allow to happen to someone else.
In the case where they tried to do the right thing and things just worked out wrong? Nope, I don't see punishing them for that. Of course if it occurs often enough, then they should be removed from that position as they are obviously incompetent.
Then who gets executed for a state run murder? Or is murder only punished with execution when someone else does it?
Let me get this straight...you try to prove your point with a hypothetical situation, then dismiss mine as "not applicable" because it's hypothetical?
High rates of recivitism, unfortunetely, are actual, not hypothetical.
If I didn't know better, I'd honestly think someone hijacked your account. In the years I've been posting here, agree or not, I have come to expect better from you. If you're too angry or convinced of your own infallibility for that to give you pause, then I have nothing more to say.
I'm neither angry nor infallible nor an impostor. I just don't agree that your position in this case is any more reasonable than mine. Yours is based on pity for the individual; mine on trying to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number in less-than-ideal world. All thought has been equally rigorous, but it's proceeding from two different starting assumptions, and therefore arrives at different endpoints.
What I can’t respect however, is when some of the ‘pro life’ people (certainly not all, but more than one I’ve known personally) feed me that line that ‘they believe all life is sacred’, and then support the death penalty. Worse, some of these same people believe, and I quote “We should just nuke the whole middle east, just to be safe.” That someone can look me in the eye and say that last line, and then tell me they’re ‘pro life’ is beyond b~@*#&&&.
You're reckoning without the authoritarian/social conservative obsession with passing judgment and ordaining punishment. The entire Middle East "deserves" to be nuked, because of the actions of terrorists from that region. If the IRA carried out a violent action within U.S. borders, all of Ireland (or the U.K. in general) would presumably "deserve" to be overrun. Anyone convicted of any crime at all apparently "deserves" to be raped in prison and left without employment opportunities thereafter, or simply killed out of hand (to me, the latter is far more humane at least).
But embryos don't deserve punishment, because they haven't been born yet, and thus haven't had a chance to incur the witch-hunters' ire.
This is interesting. How about agreeing that kids (no matter their status or age if below 12) should be especially sacred. But that at the age of 12, you can say, "this little bastard has his mind and mental foundations set, he can be treated as an adult for certain crimes", because many places will do that if the kid screws up something fierce.
Now lets call it...child's rights. Something nice and newspeakish.
We're for kids in the womb to make it out alive, and to have a decent chance to be brought up 'right', aren't we?
Damn I feel evil for typing this. But I feel this way, so hey kids, read and hate.
But you see those child corpses on the news? The Palestinian army that told these kids to throw Molotov Cocktails at the local Israeli troops? I don't give a rip for them. I don't. You know, you think that common sense would say "don't antagonize people with guns and only 27 miles to protect".
And the same can be said for my feelings towards Haitian kids. I'm sorry they didn't grow up in America as opposed to Haiti. But I'm done and have been done with the pity party for third world country children for over two decades. If you want to have three square meals a day, food, shelter, find a way to get to America, find a coyote, dammit!
If you're laying under rubble in a Haitian town square, if you're starving to death because you're in a mud hut in the DR, then obviously you were born to be a maggot nest!
My friends have wives from the DR. Their families made it to the US legally and are staying here, part of our economy. One of my best friends brought his wife's family here and now they live pretty damn well because the entire family works for various Walmarts around the Peoria area. Not a great living, but they all have plasma televisions!
People think that pro-life means that you think such and such...what it really means is that you want the kid to have a chance to get out of the womb without a needle or a clothes hanger prematurely ending it.
I'm pretty much, pro-death, as I like the US way of life and what standard of living we enjoy because of our oil-guzzling, Wal-mart consuming lives entail. I like Haliburton and their ability to find oil.
Ireland should have learned long ago that its in a bad spot and they should have been a bit more subservient instead of being the scrappers that they are so well.
People in prison are serving time, regardless of shower rape scenes.
The only thing I don't agree with fully is how some wish the Middle East would just go away. I want it to stay, but I want Israel to just go off the chain and kill everyone that gives them hell. Everyone.
So flame on, people.
My game of RotRL might end today.
As I edited above, I actually don't care what individuals ideas of when personhood starts is, I want a darn legal definition, instead of the mixed messages we have now.
See my edit; I agree.
Then who gets executed for a state run murder? Or is murder only punished with execution when someone else does it?
Well first off, to be murder, the victim doesn't have to be "innocent". Two robbers who get in a fight about the split of the loot and one shoots the other, is still going to get charged with murder. In the case of the court acting in good faith and a person gets wrongly put to death, that is more like a manslaughter issue than murder. I would say, threat it as a "wrongful death" issue and give the family some (reasonable) compensation. In the case where an individual(s), actively falsified information to cause a wrongful conviction, they should be held to the punishment they intended on the other person.
How about agreeing that kids (no matter their status or age if below 12) should be especially sacred.
Actually, I disagree with that, but that's OK. If you feel better having gotten things off your chest, this forum has at least accomplsihed something useful.
]I'm neither angry nor infallible nor an impostor. I just don't agree that your position in this case is any more reasonable than mine. Yours is based on pity for the individual; mine on trying to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number in less-than-ideal world. All thought has been equally rigorous, but it's proceeding from two different starting assumptions, and therefore arrives at different endpoints.
Which has what, exactly, to do with you taking a few unwarranted cheap shots?
In any event, my principal problem with your position is simple: You're taking data that describes a group and drawing conclusions about individual members of that group. That's called stereotyping. You're then advocating murder based on those stereotypes, an act which as bad as, or worse than, the acts you're trying to prevent! I fail to see how preemptive murder based on possible future crimes makes for "the greatest good for the greatest number." If that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal, them I'm proud to be one.
If that makes me a bleeding-heart liberal, then I'm proud to be one.That's fine. Please understand, though, that it's not a cheap shot to maintain that your view isn't necessarily better thought out or more advanced than a dissenting one.
Agreed, but accusing me of being unable to distinguish "well-reasoned" from "agrees with me" certainly was.
Agreed, but accusing the other guy of being unable to distinguish "well-reasoned" from "agrees with me" certainly is.
The point is that you've failed to demonstrate how my thinking is "less well-reasoned"; only that you don't agree with it.
Agreed, but accusing the other guy of being unable to distinguish "well-reasoned" from "agrees with me" certainly is.You've failed to demonstrate how my thinking is less well-reasoned; only that you don't agree with it.
So I'm justified in calling you anything I want until you demonstrate my statement to be false? That criteria is sure to lead to civil discourse.
Forget it, man. We could do this all day, but it's really bumming me out.
Prosecutors that willfully falsify evidence in a murder case? I got no problem with them suffering the same fate they abused their power to allow to happen to someone else.In the case where they tried to do the right thing and things just worked out wrong? Nope, I don't see punishing them for that. Of course if it occurs often enough, then they should be removed from that position as they are obviously incompetent.
Well, therein lies the problem. I need to do more reasearch on how prosecutors get and lose their jobs. For the most part though(and I think this varies from state to state) prosecutors are often immune from any legal action taken against them via the wrongly convicted. Depending on the situation and how long they've been there, it can be quite hard to get someone removed, I think.
Neutral corners, please gentleman. This is a heated topic, and turning on each other doesn't help the situation. This thread has been going on quite well, two of its steadfast pillars falling upon one another would be a horrible way to end it.
Neutral corners, please gentleman. This is a heated topic, and turning on each other doesn't help the situation. This thread has been going on quite well, two of its steadfast pillars falling upon one another would be a horrible way to end it.
It is possible (likely?) that this dust up had it's genesis in my "I expect better" remark. As I said upthread, that wasn't intended as a dig (at the time I was half sure Kirth was kidding), but I see why it came across that way. I sure as hell wouldn't have responded well to it. My apologies to you, Kirth.
My apologies to you, Kirth.
Accepted, and echoed.
It is funny how immigrants, who have even less opportunity (due to not being native speakers, lacking formalized education, etc) than some citizens that were born in the US, manage in many cases to be more successful than some of those native born citizens. I wonder, what is the major difference?
Well part of it is self selection. The most ambitious immigrants are likely the ones that find their way to rich nations. Still to really be able to evaluate the concept we need to know what percentage f immigrants become successful. Its easy to find a succsess story but its not necessarily meaningful if it does not also take into account the number of those that fail and compare that to the population in general.
And if liberals actually cared about reproductive rights as they claim, they would make it possible for men to have "statuory abortions" where they can disown a child and not be financial responsible if a woman decides to have a child and the man does not (with some kind of reasonable time frame from the time that they were legally informed of the existance of the child). The fact that liberals are quite comfortable enslaving men for the financial burden of a woman who chooses to carry a child to term, in some cases even a child that is not the man's biologically (married woman has an affair, husband's name gets put on the birth certificate, later it is found out that the child is not the husband's, he is still financially responsible even if they get divorced), just shows that the reproductive rights issue is sham.
This is really not so much about reproductive rights as it is about what is best for the child. Its simply not in the best interests of the child to loose out on child care payments hence the father (or in some cases the mother - depending on who is the primary care giver) has to cough up dough.
Fathers are not allowed to disown children simply because that is pitting his rights against those of the child and, as a society, it has been decided that in this confrontation the rights of the child always win.
What could be fair is if we made it so that the Father can have the mother arrested and forced to have an abortion, which is essentially the alternative in terms of reproductive rights to the current system, but its been decided that forcing financial hardship on a parent is not quite as extreme as forcing an abortion.
I actually suspect that if we look at judges this is going to be an area where there is, for the most part, general consensus across ideologies. This is because, once you have listened to a hundred or a thousand cases, you end up shocked and flabbergasted by what the trash manages to get up to in this regards. It just starts to make sense to take 'do what is best for the child' as the guiding principle and the parents can go to hell.
Hence I don't think either conservative or liberal judges are making their rulings explicitly on the basis of favoring the women, its just that men are less often the primary care giver. In fact I'm near certain that the number of cases where women have to pay up is markedly on the rise simply because the number of women becoming corporate lawyers and CEOs has been rising and the number of males taking the role of stay at home parent has jumped.
We have spent trillions of dollars on social welfare here and what have we gotten in return? Trillions of dollars of national debt and tens of trillions of promises the government doesn't know how it's going to keep.Also, the middle class. :-)Are you saying the middle class would not exist without social welfare?
Seriously?! I'm not trying to be obtuse here,but I really don't follow your argument. I think the middle class probably pre-existed massive socialist welfare states.
I'm going to disagree with you here. I mean sure there have always been a middle class but historically its been very small. Social Welfare states are actually extremely good at creating a middle class. They take money from the well off and pump it into programs that make it easier for the poor to climb out of poverty. A State like Denmark, (probably the highest taxed state on the planet) also has a huge middle class. I suspect if you look at economic history you'll find that there is a very strong correlation between the creation of programs indicative of a welfare state and the rise of the middle class as a larger percentage of the population. My understanding is you can do the reverse as well. If you eliminate social programs in favour of tax cuts you see a rise in income disparity and a shrinking middle class as a percentage of the population as a whole.
Fathers are not allowed to disown children simply because that is pitting his rights against those of the child and, as a society, it has been decided that in this confrontation the rights of the child always win.
If the welfare of the child trumps the parents rights, then why allow abortions?
Because one involves a living child, and the other involves a cluster of cells.
Of course some, myself included, would say what you refer to as a cluster of cells is a living child.
Because one involves a living child, and the other involves a cluster of cells.
Just for clarification, that cluster of cells is alive. Might not be a "child", depending on we are defining it, but it is a unique (from the parents) lifeform (parasitic to be precise).
Another question I have though (not necessarily for you Kirth, if you don't believe this) - I don't understand how people can be pro death penalty while at the same time being for a smaller government, citing (e.g.) that they don't trust the government to run a health care service, or don't want the government intruding on their lives. It seems to me that if the government can't be trusted to provide health care, why should it be trusted with the power of life and death over its citizens via the criminal justice system?I can only speak for myself here. I personally adhere to the "non-harm" critereon for interference. If I choose to dress up like a clown or run around the beach naked or go gambling or start a church, as long as I'm not hurting anyone else, the government ought to leave me the hell alone. If I'm raping, killing, or stealing from someone else, that's where my rights infringe on those of others, and a government exists to regulate those cases.
Fair enough, but if one believes the government is essentially not capable of doing a good job, why would the government be any better at the regulation of criminal activity, and why should the government have the most absolute power possible in that situation (as opposed to, say, enough power to regulate criminals, with less possibility of executing innocents)? I'm perfectly happy with no parole for certain offenses - if at least it gives the falsely convicted a chance to be redeemed, while keeping the rightly convicted behind bars.
Maybe you think this feeds into the rate of false convictions, and so the government would have to be incompetent enough to outweigh the benefit of executing the actually guilty?
As for your specific example, please think of the children - once seen, naked clowns on the beach can't be unseen! :)
And thank you also for being such a reasonable contributor to the discussion - it is nice when it's civil!
Fair enough, but if one believes the government is essentially not capable of doing a good job, why would the government be any better at the regulation of criminal activity, and why should the government have the most absolute power possible in that situation (as opposed to, say, enough power to regulate criminals, with less possibility of executing innocents)? I'm perfectly happy with no parole for certain offenses - if at least it gives the falsely convicted a chance to be redeemed, while keeping the rightly convicted behind bars.Maybe you think this feeds into the rate of false convictions, and so the government would have to be incompetent enough to outweigh the benefit of executing the actually guilty?
As for your specific example, please think of the children - once seen, naked clowns on the beach can't be unseen! :)
And thank you also for being such a reasonable contributor to the discussion - it is nice when it's civil!
Dear God, the naked clowns....
But seriously, I think the issue with this viewpoint is that it starts off assuming that the government is so utterly incompetent that it can't do anything right, even by accident. I'm leery of trotting out the wooden man fallacy, but I think it might apply here- it's so far to one sided it doesn't allow for any type of opposition. Am I misunderstanding something or coming in at the wrong part of the argument?
This is why I mentioned that I want prosecutors to face more than absolutely nothing in terms of messing up a case. Not that I want prosecutors killed, mind.
Well it is bad for their reputation and I'm sure if they manage to do it repeatedly they'd eventually loose their jobs as well as their reputations. Most lawyers I know will (and do) work very hard to maintain their rep. Its really the only game in town and you need to be fairly ambitious to get to be a lawyer. Plus its ultra rare to have an inexperienced lawyer doing any big sensational type crime like murder so you need to be ambitious and effective to work your way up to the point where you handle these types of cases. Add that its part of the Judges job to make sure that both sides are operating at their peak and when necessary new trials and such can be ordered and appeals made I suspect that most of the time it works out - albeit often at a glacial pace.
I'm not sure what we'd get for attempting to press charges in the vast majority of cases. Sure if one actually can show that ethical lines were crossed I'm all for upping the ante in terms of punishment but merely for screwing up? I just don't see how we'd manage to improve the system beyond what's already in place.
Fair enough, but if one believes the government is essentially not capable of doing a good job, why would the government be any better at the regulation of criminal activity, and why should the government have the most absolute power possible in that situation (as opposed to, say, enough power to regulate criminals, with less possibility of executing innocents)? I'm perfectly happy with no parole for certain offenses - if at least it gives the falsely convicted a chance to be redeemed, while keeping the rightly convicted behind bars.Maybe you think this feeds into the rate of false convictions, and so the government would have to be incompetent enough to outweigh the benefit of executing the actually guilty?
As for your specific example, please think of the children - once seen, naked clowns on the beach can't be unseen! :)
And thank you also for being such a reasonable contributor to the discussion - it is nice when it's civil!
Dear God, the naked clowns....
But seriously, I think the issue with this viewpoint is that it starts off assuming that the government is so utterly incompetent that it can't do anything right, even by accident. I'm leery of trotting out the wooden man fallacy, but I think it might apply here- it's so far to one sided it doesn't allow for any type of opposition. Am I misunderstanding something or coming in at the wrong part of the argument?
I'm trying to understand how someone can believe in small government (of the sort that they wouldn't trust to run a health care system, or believe would be instituting "death panels" to quote Sarah Palin), while at the same time trusting the government with something like the death penalty.
I'm wondering if Kirth, and maybe others, believe that the rate of false executions wouldn't outweigh the rate of goodness that accrues due to correct executions (on that view, not mine) - that is, even if the government can't be trusted to run health care, it wouldn't screw up criminal justice so badly that the costs of the death penalty would outweigh the benefits.
I'm not trying to back the argument into a corner, I honestly don't understand the viewpoint (if anyone actually holds to it, which I am not sure of).
Of course some, myself included, would say what you refer to as a cluster of cells is a living child.Because one involves a living child, and the other involves a cluster of cells.
And you'd be free to call it Bob, Arthur, Beatrice or Humpty Dumpty, doesn't change it from being a cluster of cells (e.g. a zygote, blastula or a blastocyst). You and your significant other would also be free to choose for yourselves whether to let the cluster of cells develope into an embryo, into a fetus and so on.
But be prepared for other people to feel differently, not call it a living child (especially since it's incapable of developing and "living" outside the mother), and wanting the option of removing it before it develops into the last stages of the embryogenesis process.Thus, until the agreed upon time window is closed, the parent's rights are still at the forefront since the cluster of cells hasn't yet developed into what would legally constitute a "child."
I find it contradictory that a lot of "less government" conservatives are supportive of a government ban on abortion, doesn't that run counter to the whole "less personal interference from the government" meme?
|
I find it contradictory that a lot of "less government" conservatives are supportive of a government ban on abortion, doesn't that run counter to the whole "less personal interference from the government" meme?
As always, a paradox is the clue to a greater hidden truth.
In this instance, the pro-life stance is stronger than the anti-government stance.
Every human being is constantly (and mostly unconsciously) doing a delicate balancing act between all the stances he adheres too.
Or seen from the opposite point of view, all stances are over-simplifications of a human being's view of the order of the world which is far too complex to be completely formalized (expecially since it is actually in constant flux to integrate our most recent experiences).
|
|
It's not just a pro-life stance, though. Essentially, if Religion says something, then that's a good enough reason for government to interfere with the private lives of citizens, be it regarding a perfectly legal medical procedure, or if someone loves the wrong kind of person.
Except that, in my understanding, Religion just does not "say so". Unless you count the Pope's speeches, but I believe that most non-catholics americans just do not give a damn about what he says.
There are many interpretations of what any given religion entails and, AFAIK, no absolute diktat.
I do not think it a matter of religion as much as a matter of social mores, even though they are often disguised as religious obligations.
It's not just a pro-life stance, though. Essentially, if Religion says something, then that's a good enough reason for government to interfere with the private lives of citizens, be it regarding a perfectly legal medical procedure, or if someone loves the wrong kind of person.Except that, in my understanding, Religion just does not "say so". Unless you count the Pope's speeches, but I believe that most non-catholics americans just do not give a damn about what he says.
There are many interpretations of what any given religion entails and, AFAIK, no absolute diktat.
I do not think it a matter of religion as much as a matter of social mores, even though they are often disguised as religious obligations.
Don't forget that various religious groups have a very powerful organized lobby where in a small minority can keep the unorganized debating majority from reaching a decision. And many religious lobbies will work with each other on large goal issues like abortion, gay rights, etc.
|
Don't forget that various religious groups have a very powerful organized lobby where in a small minority can keep the unorganized debating majority from reaching a decision. And many religious lobbies will work with each other on large goal issues like abortion, gay rights, etc.
And?
Who doesn't have lobbyists working for them in the government today?
Don't forget that various religious groups have a very powerful organized lobby where in a small minority can keep the unorganized debating majority from reaching a decision. And many religious lobbies will work with each other on large goal issues like abortion, gay rights, etc.And?
Who doesn't have lobbyists working for them in the government today?
Pastafarians. This needs to change.
Pastafarians. This needs to change.Don't forget that various religious groups have a very powerful organized lobby where in a small minority can keep the unorganized debating majority from reaching a decision. And many religious lobbies will work with each other on large goal issues like abortion, gay rights, etc.And?
Who doesn't have lobbyists working for them in the government today?
Pfah! Stinkin' pirates!
But be prepared for other people to feel differently, not call it a living child (especially since it's incapable of developing and "living" outside the mother), and wanting the option of removing it before it develops into the last stages of the embryogenesis process.
That 10-year old kid that needs a lung machine isn't "living" either. ;)
Thus, until the agreed upon time window is closed, the parent's rights are still at the forefront since the cluster of cells hasn't yet developed into what would legally constitute a "child."
True, sadly the legal process is still schizophrenic on the issue of when "personhood" begins.
I find it contradictory that a lot of "less government" conservatives are supportive of a government ban on abortion, doesn't that run counter to the whole "less personal interference from the government" meme?
Well most rational people that believe in less government, recognize that government intervention is needed when Person A starts crapping on Person B's rights. Now certainly a parasitic humanoid lifeform is interfering with the rights of the host organism, but the terminating of the life of the parasitic lifeform could be considered a bigger interference. So it is not so contradictory as you might imagine. Government is best when it only involves itself with Person A crapping on Person B. Abortion involves just such a fundamental issue, thus it is rational for government to be involved in it. Of course, this goes back to the issue of not knowing when the parasitic humanoid lifeform actually gets to be counted as a "person".
I'm trying to understand how someone can believe in small government (of the sort that they wouldn't trust to run a health care system, or believe would be instituting "death panels" to quote Sarah Palin), while at the same time trusting the government with something like the death penalty.
I'm wondering if Kirth, and maybe others, believe that the rate of false executions wouldn't outweigh the rate of goodness that accrues due to correct executions (on that view, not mine) - that is, even if the government can't be trusted to run health care, it wouldn't screw up...
Seabryn, a lot of my political thinking is avoiding binary thought, because it leads to armed-camp siege mentality and stalemate. So, sure, the government screws up a lot -- inevitably, because it's a large bureaucracy, and in real life any group endeavor requiring more than two people inevitably degenerates into a pissing contest between egos. However, "a lot" doesn't mean "always." A 50% success rate in protecting citizens' rights is better than a 0% rate. Likewise (at the risk of pulling a Godwin), history has taught us that, in the face of a government small enough to constitute civil anarchy, citizens inevitably overreact and put into power an extreme authoritarian regime -- and a large government with absolute power is worse than a large, mostly ineffectual one.
Don't forget that various religious groups have a very powerful organized lobby where in a small minority can keep the unorganized debating majority from reaching a decision. And many religious lobbies will work with each other on large goal issues like abortion, gay rights, etc.And?
Who doesn't have lobbyists working for them in the government today?
But the point is that lobbing is a legal though morally questionable activity where the few try to influence the decision makers unduly.
Also, I don't have a lobby which might be more to the point. Everyone should have equal access (in theory at least).
|
|
But the point is that lobbing is a legal though morally questionable activity where the few try to influence the decision makers unduly.
Also, I don't have a lobby which might be more to the point. Everyone should have equal access (in theory at least).
Oh, I know what you're saying. I'd love to see lobbying done away with as I see it as part of what hurts the country as a whole.
I just like the implication that religious groups are the only ones who are influencing the government when we all know that the NRA, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Big Oil, etc. all have a part to play in this.
Seabryn, a lot of my political thinking is avoiding binary thought, because it leads to armed-camp siege mentality and stalemate. So, sure, the government screws up a lot -- inevitably, because it's a large bureaucracy, and in real life any group endeavor requiring more than two people inevitably degenerates into a pissing contest between egos. However, "a lot" doesn't mean "always." A 50% success rate in protecting citizens' rights is better than a 0% rate. Likewise (at the risk of pulling a Godwin), history has taught us that, in the face of a government small enough to constitute civil anarchy, citizens inevitably overreact and put into power an extreme authoritarian regime -- and a large government with absolute power is worse than a large, mostly ineffectual one.I'm trying to understand how someone can believe in small government (of the sort that they wouldn't trust to run a health care system, or believe would be instituting "death panels" to quote Sarah Palin), while at the same time trusting the government with something like the death penalty.
I'm wondering if Kirth, and maybe others, believe that the rate of false executions wouldn't outweigh the rate of goodness that accrues due to correct executions (on that view, not mine) - that is, even if the government can't be trusted to run health care, it wouldn't screw up...
I'm definitely with you on avoiding binary thought - there are lots of shades of gray.
I don't actually think we differ all that much. I'm all for protecting citizen's rights. We may differ on which citizen's rights to protect - you seem to favor protecting the rights of victims (or, protecting people from becoming victims of criminals), while I favor protecting the rights of the wrongly convicted (protecting people from becoming victims of the state). But I don't think we'd disagree that both are important to do right. Unfortunately, no system is perfect, and I don't know of a system that can get both perfectly right at the same time.
But you lost me at the end here though - which government is pro-death penalty?
But the point is that lobbing is a legal though morally questionable activity where the few try to influence the decision makers unduly.
Also, I don't have a lobby which might be more to the point. Everyone should have equal access (in theory at least).Oh, I know what you're saying. I'd love to see lobbying done away with as I see it as part of what hurts the country as a whole.
I just like the implication that religious groups are the only ones who are influencing the government when we all know that the NRA, NOW, Planned Parenthood, Big Oil, etc. all have a part to play in this.
The removal of lobbying actually would harm the small guy more than the big guy. The small guy by himself, doesn't have the money or the time to go and visit his representatives on a regular basis and make sure his view is heard. The big guy has alot more flexibility to take time off and travel to see his representatives. Lobbying allows a bunch of small guys to pool their resources, to hire professionals to represent them and get their views heard.
EDIT:===Off-topic===
Howard Dean says that a Republican that was against a public option wins against a Democrat that is for a public option proves that the people want a public option. Why did Dean not win the presidential primary again?
Likewise (at the risk of pulling a Godwin), history has taught us that, in the face of a government small enough to constitute civil anarchy, citizens inevitably overreact and put into power an extreme authoritarian regime -- and a large government with absolute power is worse than a large, mostly ineffectual one.But you lost me at the end here though - which government is pro-death penalty?
What I was trying to emphasize is that my being generally in favor of "smaller" government should not be in any way construed to mean I'm in favor of "no" government. The Weimar Republic in my family homeland was so weak it really wasn't much of a government at all, and the people wanted stability and prosperity above all else, paving the way for the fascists to take over (thus the Godwin warning). That's a case of a too-small government directly contributing to a too-strong one to coming into power. And those guys were pro-death as can be (ovens, even), forcing my grandfather to flee.
** spoiler omitted **
Maybe it is because of things like this. :D
That first D&D one would have been freakin' hilarious if I didn't keep thinking "Wait! That's not what he's saying!" Watching it with the sound off is better.
That first D&D one would have been freakin' hilarious if I didn't keep thinking "Wait! That's not what he's saying!" Watching it with the sound off is better.
Sometimes ignorance is bliss.