|
Alright, now another live example...
I hope I'm not dumped in the super-racist bin for saying this, but I can recall one of my African American friends being upset in his youth when he went to a barber shop and was told that they did not cut that type of hair. I agreed that the way he had been told was rather crude and probably had racist undertones. But there are (at least I believe so based on what I've read and seen in beauty supply stores) some physical differences between ethnic groups. Some retail establishments may not be fully equipped to deal with these physical differences. Is this discriminatory in nature?
Should a business that makes make up or other facial beautifying agents create make ups for persons of all skin color even if its founder really only has significant knowledge of a few skin types?
Alright, now another live example...
I hope I'm not dumped in the super-racist bin for saying this, but I can recall one of my African American friends being upset in his youth when he went to a barber shop and was told that they did not cut that type of hair. I agreed that the way he had been told was rather crude and probably had racist undertones. But there are (at least I believe so based on what I've read and seen in beauty supply stores) some physical differences between ethnic groups. Some retail establishments may not be fully equipped to deal with these physical differences. Is this discriminatory in nature?
Should a business that makes make up or other facial beautifying agents create make ups for persons of all skin color even if its founder really only has significant knowledge of a few skin types?
Hmmm Im not really weighing in on this, but just adding a personal anecdote. My Stepmother is a hairdresser who originally hailed from Senegal. She is African-American and refuses to cut white people hair. She simply does not know how. I dont believe that makes her rascist.
|
|
Interesting, thats the first time I've heard Dr. Paul called a liar. Are we certain he was talking about the same articles?Oh, the Racist Newsletter? Pah, yeah, there were three of those.
He didn't write them. Didn't endorse them, and didn't know about them.
And what's more, I heard that when he did there was a reshuffling of editors and publishers, not to mention a few heads rolling. Mostly, though it was kept quiet, and that may not have been the correct thing to do politically.Um. Here's the BS flag flying full and proud. In the 96 election, not only did he defend them, he also admitted writing them. It was his democratic challenger who brought them up and forced him to explain them.
When he rejoined the Republican party, he admitted knowing about them but then changed his story and said that they were ghost-written.
Then when they came up a third time in 08, he said he didn't know about them. Three different stories about the same thing. Sorry, but I'm calling him a liar as well.
To clarify this matter, I will call Dr. Paul's congressional office tomorrow and see if I can get in touch with his campaign. Perhaps there is a better explanation.
|
|
Hmmm Im not really weighing in on this, but just adding a personal anecdote. My Stepmother is a hairdresser who originally hailed from Senegal. She is African-American and refuses to cut white people hair. She simply does not know how. I dont believe that makes her rascist.Alright, now another live example...
I hope I'm not dumped in the super-racist bin for saying this, but I can recall one of my African American friends being upset in his youth when he went to a barber shop and was told that they did not cut that type of hair. I agreed that the way he had been told was rather crude and probably had racist undertones. But there are (at least I believe so based on what I've read and seen in beauty supply stores) some physical differences between ethnic groups. Some retail establishments may not be fully equipped to deal with these physical differences. Is this discriminatory in nature?
Should a business that makes make up or other facial beautifying agents create make ups for persons of all skin color even if its founder really only has significant knowledge of a few skin types?
It may not be racist, but is it discriminatory? That's what I'm trying to get at, (I think.) Now that I know that discrimination refers to behaviors, rather than to a specific thought-based behavior, I am wondering if discrimination should be legal? Discrimination based on racism (or other society-isms) is of course rather reprehensible. But what if that discrimination is based on an understandable and defendable difference?
Holding a door open for a wheelchair-bound person is a type of discrimination, but it's a rather noble behavior, in my book. Treating people differently because of physical, social, or cultural differences may not be entirely negative.
Of course, people have been sued for being nice... =(
I don't have a problem with that. My mother remembers a time when women had to go to different states to get abortions. Its very similar (although larger in effect) to when people go to different counties to purchase liquor. Or when young people go to Mexico or Canada to drink alcohol. Or when individuals might go to different states for prostitutes or pornography.
Just to point something out that is easy to overlook: This approach presupposes you have the resources and time to go to a different state. If you have the money and can afford the time off work, it's easy to do. If you're poor, don't own a car/can't afford a plane ticket and will get fired if you miss a couple days of work, it's a completely different story. If your mother remembers when women had to go to different states, she may also remember a time when women died of botched self-induced or back-alley abortions. There is a reason the coathanger is a symbol of the pro-choice movement.
These women may not have been in her social circles, but they existed.If it was banned entirely in the US, rich women could still fly to Europe if they needed to. That doesn't help the rest of the population.
I also find it a little much to compare abortion to entertainment. Having, or not being able to get, an abortion is a life changing event. It's nothing like a weekend bash over the border. You life isn't going to be fundamentally different for at least the next 18 years if you can't make into Mexico to drink.
|
|
I'm afraid I'm unsuited to argue against abortion as I believe it is murder (which most states have laws against). However, my belief that it is murder has not stopped women from doing it. I'm also not a woman, so perhaps should step down from the abortion argument altogether. Most of what I learned about abortion did come from my mother (who did inform me of the coat-hanger abortions). She also told me the reason that most women did not want to go through a full term pregnancy and give the child up for adoption was due to social embarassment or fear of parental punishment at the discovery of pregnancy. And that's all I'm going to say about that since I would likely go into a moral debate, and I want to stay away from that.
(unless I too am naive about racial matters),
I will remark on the "No blacks, no dogs, no Irish." statement though. I wonder how many businesses placed these signs at the insistence of their customers? (obviously not the blacks and Irish). I can see how a business would not want to lose a loyal customer base if the customers are the ones that have racial superiority complexes, rather than the management.
In this case, the latter proves the former. I would say you are quite naive when it comes to matters of race.
Do your experiences with Pakistanis and the other racial groups you encountered make you racist? No, so long as you don't act upon these negative experiences or let them blind you to the possibility of positive ones. Talk to some of these people next time they show up. Or do some research on your own. I do know that in these cultures there are specific things that one is supposed to do in the marketplace that you may or may not be doing that put these people at ease. Not that you should be doing them per se or acting like anyone other than yourself, but sometimes a bit of research can yield surprising results.
I think that it is more of a compromise, allowing the states to use their 10th amendment rights. If "women can just go to other states" is not valid, why is "people who think that abortion is murder have to just suck it up and allow it" valid? They too would have to go to another state if they lived in an abortion allowed state and wanted to live in an abortion free area. I think the crux of the arguement is that it is easier to change state law to suit the mores and beliefs of the population than it is the federal law. (Mostly because the larger the population that you legislate, the larger the size of the minority viewpoint)
Im using abortion as an example. Not as a personal stance. I am too conflicted on it to even have a personal stance.
I think that it is more of a compromise, allowing the states to use their 10th amendment rights. If "women can just go to other states" is not valid, why is "people who think that abortion is murder have to just suck it up and allow it" valid?
Basically, because we assume that my freedom to do X with my body/property trumps your freedom to not be offended by what I'm doing with my body/property. (It's a different story if exercising my freedom to do X actually harms you.)
Although it's possible to argue that our laws don't always reflect that (for example, if you believe you should have the right to use heroin even if I don't like the idea), usually it's more like: the laws do still reflect that, but they assume that act X that some parties consider victimless is in some way victim-ful.
|
|
Sigh! Back into the abortion argument again.
If states define abortion as murder (which I think a number of constituents hold it to be), then property rights don't really apply. I suppose we could charge the infant with criminal trespass. There we go. Trespassers can be shot, after all. Of course, then again, the infant is struggling to leave the premises as soon as possible, so criminal trespass might not apply.
Unwanted pregnant mothers should explain their property rights to the unborn, and make sure the unborn baby signs a contract prior to conception so that everything is very clear and laid out. I suppose it could be a lease agreement, and we should stipulate that no open candles be allowed in the womb. There's also a fine for kicking or punching the sides. I wonder what the going rate of womb rental is these days?
Sigh! Back into the abortion argument again.
If states define abortion as murder (which I think a number of constituents hold it to be), then property rights don't really apply. I suppose we could charge the infant with criminal trespass. There we go. Trespassers can be shot, after all. Of course, then again, the infant is struggling to leave the premises as soon as possible, so criminal trespass might not apply.
Unwanted pregnant mothers should explain their property rights to the unborn, and make sure the unborn baby signs a contract prior to conception so that everything is very clear and laid out. I suppose it could be a lease agreement, and we should stipulate that no open candles be allowed in the womb. There's also a fine for kicking or punching the sides. I wonder what the going rate of womb rental is these days?
I don't even know what that has to do with what anyone was actually saying.
This feels like the forum post equivalent of a picture of a bunny with a pancake on its head.
I think that it is more of a compromise, allowing the states to use their 10th amendment rights. If "women can just go to other states" is not valid, why is "people who think that abortion is murder have to just suck it up and allow it" valid?Basically, because we assume that my freedom to do X with my body/property trumps your freedom to not be offended by what I'm doing with my body/property. (It's a different story if exercising my freedom to do X actually harms you.)
Although it's possible to argue that our laws don't always reflect that (for example, if you believe you should have the right to use heroin even if I don't like the idea), usually it's more like: the laws do still reflect that, but they assume that act X that some parties consider victimless is in some way victim-ful.
which proves my point. Our federal government cherry picks what you can and cannot do with your own body/or property. No matter what part of the country you are in, (which you have to admit, we have alot of different, diverse views in our country, its what makes us great IMO.) The federal government has final say, no matter what your mores may be. Want to smoke pot in your own home? Too bad, its illegal. Think abortion is equal to murder? Too bad, its legal. The Tenth Amendment is, like so much else in the Constitution, a compromise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Strike Three for Rescheduling Marijuana
"...And while there is a criminal element, I am of it..."
--Eugene V. Debs, spoken, admittedly, in very different circumstances
So, my father received a letter from the Ron Paul campaign in the mail. It was all about abortion and included a Pledge of Support with the following language:
"It is the first and foremost constitutional duty of the federal government to protect the Life and Liberty of its citizens. You cannot protect Liberty without protecting Life.
That's why I [in this case, my father] pledge to support your [RP] goals of:"
and here it lets you check off which goal you support
"--An end to abortion on demand.
--A permanent ban on all federal funding of abortion and abortion providers.
--A bill to define Life as beginning at conception.
--Appointing pro life judges to overturn Roe V Wade."
Now, I, too, have no real desire to argue about the issue here, not because I lack strong feelings on the matter, but for the sake of avoiding a flamewar.
I do want to point out, however, that it seems his position is much different from the one articulated by Libertarians and Lib-sympathizers elsewhere on this thread.
That is all.
But not really. Banning federal funding or overturning Roe vs Wade is not the same as outright banning something. It just keeps the federal system out of it. I may be wrong though, feel free to correct me if that is the case. ( I like learning!)
But not really. Banning federal funding or overturning Roe vs Wade is not the same as outright banning something. It just keeps the federal system out of it. I may be wrong though, feel free to correct me if that is the case. ( I like learning!)
Well, I ain't no teacher, but a bill to define Life (why the capital?) as beginning at conception doesn't sound like getting the feds off my back to me.
EDIT: I just quoted from the Pledge of Support. There is also a six-page letter where, over and over again, he writes about how he is running on Pro-Life principles informed by his Christian faith.
Here's a couple of paragraphs:
"There are many paths to ending abortion, and I've supported pretty much any one I could think of over the years. Sometimes that even has meant well meaning people have disagreed as to whether state or federal action would be the better path to take to finally ending abortion.
Let me say this unequivocally--I think we should do EVERYTHING we possibly can that saves lives. And I won't play politics with the lives of unborn children, trying to decide which path pleases the most people or helps a group raise the most money."
If I'm reading this correctly, he's pretty much rejecting what you've argued above. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.
EDIT II: Don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing him of hypocrisy. I'm just saying it doesn't appear that his position on abortion vis-a-vis the 10th Amendment is the same as what you've argued.
And to point out again, life does exist at conception (I'm not sure I would say it "begins" then though). I know wikipedia is a horrible source, but here is what it says about "life".
[2] either because such functions have ceased (death), or else because they lack such functions and are classified as inanimate.[3][4] Biology is the science concerned with the study of life.
Living organisms undergo metabolism, maintain homeostasis, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt to their environment in successive generations. ...
I'm pretty sure that humanoid parasitic things would qualify as "life".
Now is it a "person"? That is where the defining comes in.
If the legislature wants to say it is life, big deal, the science community already does.
Full disclosure: i do not know what Ron Paul's abortion stance is. I was using it as an example of why I do not consider the tenth amendment a "cop-out". I do not what his stance on abortion is because, as Ive stated before, I really have no stance on abortion (and therefor prospective president's stances are not important to me). If its legal, Im ok with it. If its illegal, Im ok with it too. I see both sides of the arguement. Just wanted you guys to know that when I was talking about Abortion being a state's right to decide, that it is my view, not anyone else's.
But not really. Banning federal funding or overturning Roe vs Wade is not the same as outright banning something. It just keeps the federal system out of it. I may be wrong though, feel free to correct me if that is the case. ( I like learning!)Well, I ain't no teacher, but a bill to define Life (why the capital?) as beginning at conception doesn't sound like getting the feds off my back to me.
EDIT: I just quoted from the Pledge of Support. There is also a six-page letter where, over and over again, he writes about how he is running on Pro-Life principles informed by his Christian faith.
Here's a couple of paragraphs:
"There are many paths to ending abortion, and I've supported pretty much any one I could think of over the years. Sometimes that even has meant well meaning people have disagreed as to whether state or federal action would be the better path to take to finally ending abortion.
Let me say this unequivocally--I think we should do EVERYTHING we possibly can that saves lives. And I won't play politics with the lives of unborn children, trying to decide which path pleases the most people or helps a group raise the most money."
If I'm reading this correctly, he's pretty much rejecting what you've argued above. But maybe I'm reading it wrong.
EDIT II: Don't get me wrong. I'm not accusing him of hypocrisy. I'm just saying it doesn't appear that his position on abortion vis-a-vis the 10th Amendment is the same as what you've argued.
My emphasis above.
I take it then that RP is also going to campaign for getting rid of all death penalty laws, fund development of non-lethal "weapons" for the police force, forbid firearms production and dismantle almost the entire military. All of which are trained to kill people (military) or outright does nothing than kill people (firearms, death penalty laws).No? Then it's just empty pandering to the religious masses, nothing more.
Furthermore, what is RP's stance on state Constitutions that contradict or are in direct violation of the Constitution?
I think RP is an advocate of the Consistent Life Ethic in some degree.
More Muscular Interventionism; The Foreign Policy of Barack Obama, By JEFF TAYLOR
(I can't believe I just linked to counterpunch.)
RP has a very limited view of the Incorporation Doctrine in sharp contrast to my (personal) very expansive view.
I think RP is an advocate of the Consistent Life Ethic in some degree.
He may be an advocate for it, but is he actually going to try and do something about it, like he apparently wants to do about abortion?
If not, I'll be tempted to call him a hypocrite on the "life" issue and still only pandering to the religious for votes.RP has a very limited view of the Incorporation Doctrine in sharp contrast to my (personal) very expansive view.
So he wants states to be able to have laws or provisions that counter the US constitution? Or how should I read your reply?
Good, relevant to the current conversation in this thread, article here
As an aside, I cannot think of any politician that I would not call a hypocrite in some form or another. It comes down to what you can live with in a candidate. None of them are perfect, unless you yourself happen to be running. All one can do is pick the best fit out of what's available.
(I can't believe I just linked to counterpunch.)
Don't worry, BT, I'll leave an open seat on the Executive Board of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat for you!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
like looking at a train wreck.
The problem with favoriting one of CJ's post, White Knife, is you never know if he's referring to the previous post, the previous page or all 675 posts of the entire thread!
:P
Good, relevant to the current conversation in this thread, article here
As an aside, I cannot think of any politician that I would not call a hypocrite in some form or another. It comes down to what you can live with in a candidate. None of them are perfect, unless you yourself happen to be running. All one can do is pick the best fit out of what's available.
Good article.
"Critically, they realize that our current two-party political paradigm is seriously bankrupt as it has brought us to this point. It's not that we got politically lazy; we did not: in fact, we've been as energetic as ever in opposing our political foes on our favorite political issues... Rather, we got too involved in the issues that defined our old political identities, and missed how the fundamentals were being changed around us.
As we were all having our "I'm right, you're wrong" Democratic and Republican arguments, the powers that be made themselves more powerful, and while we were arguing, we have lost most of the rights that we weren't arguing about because we took them for granted."
Don't worry, BT, I'll leave an open seat on the Executive Board of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat for you!(I can't believe I just linked to counterpunch.)
*Facepalm!* ;)
I think RP is an advocate of the Consistent Life Ethic in some degree.He may be an advocate for it, but is he actually going to try and do something about it, like he apparently wants to do about abortion?
If not, I'll be tempted to call him a hypocrite on the "life" issue and still only pandering to the religious for votes.
Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes
Opposes death penalty at state and federal level
Paul opposes the death penalty and would vote against it in “any legislative body he was a member of,” according to campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. In 2005, Paul praised the late Pope John Paul II for being an “eloquent and consistent advocate for an ethic of life, exemplified by his struggles against abortion, war, euthanasia and the death penalty.”
Source: Pew Forum on Religion and Politics 2008 Jan 1, 2008
Changed opinion to anti-death penalty due to many mistakes
Q: Is the death penalty is carried out justly?
A: Over the years, I’ve held pretty rigid all my beliefs, but I’ve changed my opinion about the death penalty. For federal purposes, I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you’re rich, you get away with it; if you’re poor & you’re from the inner city, you’re more likely to be prosecuted & convicted. Today, with DNA evidence, there have been too many mistakes. So I am now opposed to the federal death penalty.
Source: 2007 GOP Presidential Forum at Morgan State University Sep 27, 2007
RP has a very limited view of the Incorporation Doctrine in sharp contrast to my (personal) very expansive view.So he wants states to be able to have laws or provisions that counter the US constitution? Or how should I read your reply?
It's a bit more complicated than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, the problems with favoriting one of MY posts, WK, are innumberable. But I'll let other enumerate them.
|
like looking at a train wreck.The problem with favoriting one of CJ's post, White Knife, is you never know if he's referring to the previous post, the previous page or all 675 posts of the entire thread!
:P
Your quite right. However in this case you can choose all of the above. I will endeavor in the future to be more specific.
That would be a violation of the Consistent Life Ethic and Ron Paul would disapprove.
LMFAO!
