|
I think we all are too quick in america to pick one political party or the other based on agreeing with some of the politics and end up compromising some of what we really believe. In this thread i would like us to talk about our political opinions with more depth than " im a (insert party here". What topics do you disagree with you own party over. This is not an attempt to argue over who has "superior" opinions or beliefs but a chance for us to explain what we stand for to better understand each other.
I will start
I am very pro gun but do believe in some rational gun control, like keeping them out of the hands of criminals and restricting full auto
I am pro death penalty. i believe in removing any great threat to the innocent however i do want better trials/ criteria to find someone guilty.
I am pro assisted suicide. How can you tell someone they HAVE to live in pain?
I am torn on abortion. It is killing potential human life but i cannot see legally forcing women to give birth (taking away control of her own body) and too hard to stop them from doing it anyway and risking injury
I am for religious freedom. I am also against forcing religion on others so i oppose school prayer and the like.
I am for legalizing drugs. Conversely i am against using them. I do not like the gov telling us what we can do to ourselves but still think it is dumb to wreck your brain.
So what are some of your views? Again please keep this civil, i really am more interested in us knowing the little details of each others opinions not proving who is right here.
|
I am gonna tackle this point by point.
I think we all are too quick in america to pick one political party or the other based on agreeing with some of the politics and end up compromising some of what we really believe. In this thread i would like us to talk about our political opinions with more depth than " im a (insert party here". What topics do you disagree with you own party over. This is not an attempt to argue over who has "superior" opinions or beliefs but a chance for us to explain what we stand for to better understand each other.
I agree completely with you premise, except I would say we end up compromising most of what we believe in. But that is probably splitting hairs.
I will start
I am very pro gun but do believe in some rational gun control, like keeping them out of the hands of criminals and restricting full auto
I mostly agree here though due to why I believe in the freedom to bear arms I do not agree with a restriction on full-auto.
I am pro death penalty. i believe in removing any great threat to the innocent however i do want better trials/ criteria to find someone guilty.
I am pro-the existence and judicious application of the death penalty. I think Texas has a good idea.
I am pro assisted suicide. How can you tell someone they HAVE to live in pain?
I have nothing to add here, for now. I agree with this completely.
I am torn on abortion. It is killing potential human life but i cannot see legally forcing women to give birth (taking away control of her own body) and too hard to stop them from doing it anyway and risking injury
I am politically pro-choice, and personally against it in most instances. I also hate the term pro-life as it implies that because I am pro-choice I must therefore be anti-life. Call it what it is the Anti-choice movement.
I am for religious freedom. I am also against forcing religion on others so i oppose school prayer and the like.
I am for religious freedom. Key word here religious. Christianity is not the only religion, Judaism is not the only religion, hell Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are not the only religions. I go on here but you get the point, I am for religious freedom for ANY religion.
I also agree that I am against forcing religion on others. That said, while I am against forced school prayer, I am not against prayer in our schools. I am for some allowance made for students to follow the religion they are being brought up in. That said there are some things that we need to know to navigate the adult world and it is the duty of our school system to educate the children in these matters. As an example, I think that every child should have to take Sex-Ed in school, no matter the religion of the parents. If the parents want to ensure that the child receives the values education that they believe, then that is the parents responsibility, and as long as the school notifies them when their child is taking the classes they can cover the values education at home.
I am for legalizing drugs. Conversely i am against using them. I do not like the gov telling us what we can do to ourselves but still think it is dumb to wreck your brain.
Politically I agree with you. I don't agree with your interpretation of drugs and their effects. I believe that most drugs used in moderation are not a serious danger to the user, especially if we take out the unknown factors introduced by the current market for them being the street.
So what are some of your views? Again please keep this civil, i really am more interested in us knowing the little details of each others opinions not proving who is right here.
I am anti-censorship, mostly, I agree that there are things that children should not be exposed to. I do not agree with the way we handle it currently.
I am pro-legal-nudity. Obviously I am against using your nudity as a weapon, especially against or involving children. I do not believe that children are harmed by the sight of the naked body, of either gender.
I am pro-legalized prostitution. If we legalize and regulate it, it becomes a reasonably healthy and safe profession.
Most of my POV can be summed up in legalize and regulate. If someone wants to do something and the only person directly affected is themselves then we have no business telling them no.
|
|
I mostly agree here though due to why I believe in the freedom to bear arms I do not agree with a restriction on full-auto.What possible use would you have for a fully automatic weapon?
I am pro-legalized prostitution. If we legalize and regulate it, it becomes a reasonably healthy and safe profession.It doesn't reduce abuse, it doesn't reduce trafficking, and it legitimizes and provides cover for trafficked/underage prostitutes. It only makes prostitution safer and healthier for johns. (More info on this)
The freedom to bear arms is there in place to allow us to overthrow the gov't. For this to work the people need to have access to the same level of armament as the gov't. As no gov't would reasonably blow itself up to prevent its being overthrown, Nuclear Weapons are an exception in my book.
Your linked article discusses the issue using foreign examples and from my quick read mostly 3rd world examples. Funny how they ignore two places where it works, Nevada and Denmark. In an already corrupt and insufficient system prostitution is just one more place where people are abused. In short I disagree with your analysis.
|
|
I mostly agree here though due to why I believe in the freedom to bear arms I do not agree with a restriction on full-auto.What possible use would you have for a fully automatic weapon?
The use given in the whole reason that our nation was formed....overthrowing an "oppressive" rulership that wouldn't give proper representation of the populace. The right to bear arms was never a hunting issue, although everyone trying to impose restrictions acts like it is.
|
|
I am pro-the existence and judicious application of the death penalty. I think Texas has a good idea.
If Texas is an example of the "judicious application" of the death penalty, do you have an example of injudicious application?
I also agree that I am against forcing religion on others. That said, while I am against forced school prayer, I am not against prayer in our schools.In this context, is a teacher leading the class in prayer, but allowing students who object to leave or sit silently "forced school prayer" or legitimate? Especially for young children, both adult and peer pressure make it very hard to resist?
No one has objections to students praying quietly on their own and very few object to voluntary student groups praying outside of class hours, after school or free periods.
For the record I was refering to Texas's ruling that with a certain number, I believe the number was 6, of Eye Witnesses, people who saw you do the act, if you are found guilty and the judge gives you the death penalty, there are no appeals and the execution will be carried out in a fairly short period of time, I think it is measured on weeks.
Sorry I am not more specific on this I can not find the details right now.
As far as the "school prayer" issue goes I would need to look into more details on specific instances to really formulate a strong opinion beyond what I have stated. Though I will say that you are absolutely and unequivocally wrong when you declare that, "No one has objections to students praying quietly on their own."You shouldn't need to search very hard to find stories of students who were harassed by teachers for just this activity. Google the following words, "school prayer student punished" you will find a lot of links to various stories on this. No I do not believe that everything I read on the internet is true, however I do believe that generally where there is smoke there is fire.
The only thing im going to add here is this
i keep hearing over and over that 49% of americans dont pay any taxs
49% really who are these people and how do they survive..i only make right at 20 grand a year after taxs and i pay in about 2000 a year fed not counting medicare,union, medical etc..i barly make it month to month
rent, food, hell pathfinder is my entire entermainment budget..
not blaming demos or rebs.but sometime i think this whole 49% thing is a little smoke and mirrors..
correct me if im wrong but to get the earned income credit you have to make less then 11 thou a year..how can anyone live on this without..foodstamps..total housing assitance and so on...
49% really
just saying
I believe that if you want to institute a death penalty, you should be willing to suffer the same consequence as any innocent who was put to death with your system.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been wondering if there is a huge platform of common ground that our current political situation bypasses. We keep going around in circles over gay marriage and school prayer while issues like really fixing healthcare and our broke-ass economy/government get ignored.
I'm going to list some of the things that I think bypass the common divisive issues:
We don't need the Electoral College anymore. 1 citizen = 1 vote.
Nationalize the voting systems to the best, most honest method available. Most other countries can manage an election without months of court battles and such.
We need less people in prison. Decriminalize some of the minor offenses and work out other options for non-violent offenders.
End the off-shoring of banking and taxes. No more Cayman Island/Swiss bank account b*+%$~*#. All income should be treated equally. Taxes should be basically eliminated for the poor and ramp up for million and billionaires. Individuals should be able to do their taxes on a single sheet of paper. The tax code should be simple for individuals and companies.
The Banks (and other big business) needs to be regulated. You can't allow companies to speculate and gamble, then guarantee to cover their loses. "Too big to fail" is too big to operate. No company should hold our very economy in their hands.
Lobbying is bribery. Our grandparents knew it, when did we forget?
Everyone has the right to a fair trial and the protections of international treaties that the US has signed such as the Geneva Conventions.
We must balance the budget. We are a wealthy country, there is no valid reason we should be so indebted to private or foreign powers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You should take money for things we all need to contribute to together (sorry republicans), but not legislate behavior for things we all need to do together (sorry democrats).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there should be a moratorium on the death penalty until we can enact federal legislation ensuring that all death row convicts have a chance to exonerate themselves using modern technology (DNA, etc). Among other things.
I also think anyone should be able to terminate their own life if they so choose, and assistance in this should be considered a noble profession when applied to terminally ill. I think this should apply to prison inmates as well, and I think this would work itself out.
I'm ambivalent on guns. I have no need nor can I imagine a situation where I would desire a gun. I'm uncomfortable with them around me. They have a place in our society, but the reverence given to them disturbs me. We've had whole threads of back and forth on this one.
Religious freedom sounds great, but it shouldn't be held any higher than other rights we secure for ourselves. Your religious freedom doesn't trump my freedom of speech. Churches should be taxed like any other organization and allowed to deduct legitimate charity work (missionary work doesn't count, sorry).
We need to get the money out of politics and move towards greater transparency. We need to move to amend the constitution such to get rid of this corporate personhood nonsense.
I think balancing the budget is a great idea! It should under no circumstances be part of the constitution requiring us to do so every year, that's idiotic. We need to be able to put things on the credit card when needed. At this time, we need to DRASTICALLY cut military spending. Start by cutting it by a third and see how much money that frees up. Even if we cut our military in half, we'd still be able to soundly defeat any and all legitimate threats to our security.
In general, I think the federal government is needed for five main things:
1)Infrastructure. From communications to transportation to energy, the government is the only power that can and will ensure equal access to these things which have become necessary for modern life.
2)Defense. I'm fine with having a large and powerful military. What we have is a lumbering behemoth that has largely outgrown its use.
3)Environmental protection. We can't leave the protection of air, water, and other natural resources to the states who race to open their doors to businesses.
4)Education. Much the same reasons, I think local biases taint the education process. Everyone should be required to attend some public school. Private schools have their place, but we should absolutely not spend public dollars on them.
5)Health Care. Any for-profit private healthcare system is going to (and does in the US) lead to awful results. I think basic healthcare, especially emergency and preventative care, should be considered a right.
Basically what gov't on any level does best is the situations where, when left to private industry to provide necessary services, the externalities are too great.
|
|
Well, I'm a libertarian...but not the way people on the internet seem to feel that word means.
On social issues:
I, too, believe in complete freedom to own whatever weapons one wishes (including anti-tank missiles, never mind automatic weapons). For all the reasons gone into by others. I'm cool with not allowing convicted felons to have guns, though.
I think religion should be a personal choice. And that the government and all government organs (such as publically funded schools) shouldn't be involved in it in the least way. This means both that there shouldn't be school prayer, and that if an individual student wants to lead a prayer group (of any sort) the school should leave them the hell alone. I do agree with the person above who mentioned that this is all religions, not just Christian denominations, or even Judaeo-Christian faiths...though that may have something to do with being a pagan.
I am very much for assisted suicide in certain cases, and against the governement having any real say in such a thing. If you don't own your life itself, what do you own?
Legally speaking, I am pro-choice. Both because I believe in women's rights to their own bodies and, more compellingly, because women don't stop having abortions when you make them illegal. They just try riskier and crazier methods. Personally? I don't think it's morally wrong. But it is often psychologically damaging to the woman in question, deeply unpleasant, and is not something to undertake at all lightly. Which, frankly, isn't something I think women ever actually do.
I am for legalizing all drugs. Prohibition didn't work on alcohol, why do we think it'll work on other drugs? This would also go a long way to solving the prison overcrowding issue mentioned above.
I am absolutely against government censorship. Parental censorship (such as the child-blocking stuff on many TVs today) is wonderful and should probably be in universal usage (kids really can get messed up by media).
Legal immigration should be readily available to basically anyone who's not a criminal on the run or something silly like that. Current illegals should be given every opportunity to become citizens, resident aliens, etc. Thereafter (once it's easy legally) new illegal immigrants should be treated pretty harshly.
The governement shouldnn't be involved in marriage, civil unions, or any of that at all. Mariage should be an exclusively religious observance while any contracts or legal unions should be worked out among the people (of any gender, and in any number) in question. Domestic abuse should obviously be punished harshly...but that's not exactly new.
Prisons, at least as they exist, are an awful idea. People go in, and come out with credibility among criminals, new criminal skills, and a network of connections. It's like college for criminals. A felony will also severely limit your job opportunities, and the culture shock greatly increases recidivism. The whole thing's a bad idea. I don't know what should replace it precisely, but it seems clear that something better could be come up with.
As for the death penalty, we need to either use it or lose it. I don't actually care which. In most states it's such a long, expensive process, that it's more expensive than a life sentence. We either need to decrease the appeals involved (or at least how long they take) or scrap it altogether. I have no real preference for which (as it's potential effect as a deterrent is balanced against the inevitability of executing an innocent someday).
I am for legalized prostitution, and very skeptical of the sources cited in the report A Man In Black links. It's not my area of specialty...but I'd bet those are based on South American countries...not, say, Australia or Canada. The diference between a corrupt government making prositution legal in order to rake in money from sex-tourism (ie: this will result in horrible abuse) and a rational governemnt deciding it has no say over consenting adults (ie: maybe not so much) is rather large...Not that I want to get into that argument in depth. In fact, I refuse to do so.
On economic issues:
I am almost the most radical free-market advocate it is possible to be. There's just one thing: Almost all the other people claiming that are wrong.
We don't have a free market. At all. Not even close. Why? Limited liability corporations. Their very existence, necessarily authorized by a governmental body, is a deep and appalling violation of every possible free-market principle. By removing responsibility for their actions from the people who form such a corporation, you give them an entirely unfair and artificial advantage...as well as basically ensuring truly horrible abuses. The idea that you have corporations in anything like their current state in a free market is a monstrous piece of corporate propaganda, and I am shocked that almost everyone buys into it.
Vastly empowering corporate entitries via governemental mandate and bailing them out when they fail is not how a free market works. An actual free-market economy would look nothing like what we have today.
Now, being for a free market in theory doesn't mean I'm an idiot or a fanatic. In practice, we have corporations, and (as utterly idiotic as having them is) we're stuck with them for the moment, so some sort of oversight (even governmental) is a lot better than nothing.
I'm also not against social programs per se. It seems to me that universal medical care, particularly, is a perfectly reasonable thing for a state sponsored body to provide (as long as there are privately owned alternatives, anyway). Of course, our current medical system is so horribly broken that I'm rapidly losing any hope of it being fixed per se. We might need to burn it down and start over (though I sure hope not, as the death toll might well be staggering).
I am also all for higher taxes on the wealthy, assuming you have taxes at all. I mean, the purpose of taxes is to provide money to the government at the lowest real cost to the people, how is this not obviously the way to go? I can, and wil, argue that taxes are not a necessity for a government...but alternate revenue streams don't seem a practical method at the moment.
I also agree with basically everything Fergie mentions (except the electoral college thing...I honestly can see both sides on that one). That all sounds entirely reasonable, and the simplified taxes particularly is something I'd give almost anything to make a reality.
I also primarily agree with meatrace on the legitimate functions of government, though I'd add law enforcement, and don't think it's absolutely essential for infrastructure or education (though it can certainly be handy for both).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You really want to know? Well you asked for it.
1. That the emerging picture of human decision making effectively means that codes of law derived from the Code of Hammurabi are intrinsically flawed. That "the entire idea that we can maintainsocial order by obtaining voluntary adherance to a code of permissible behaviours, under threat of retribution-- is fundamentally misguided."
From Milgram to the present, their is a train of evidence slowly building to suggest that 'free will' is merely an illusion. When Neuroscience has demonstrated that decisions are made before we are even aware of them, and our decision making can be reliably co-opted by influence as simple as the presence of "a man in a white coat", can it be effective or ethical to punish people for their 'decisions'?
Then their is massive cost of incarceration(an estimated £40,000 a year/prisoner in the uk), and the relatively common occurance of miscarriages of justice in judgements on capital crimes.
In the worlds of Judge Learned Hand, "Our procedure has been always haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted. It is an unreal dream."
In such a world, prison is an expensive folly and capital crime an evil we should be rid of, because their are better ways of dealing with crime.
We are for the first time, starting to understand enough about the factors that govern human behaviour that we can start to build into our society ways to prevent crime, and its recurrence.
For instance, if you decriminalise drug use, and make the most highly addictive and damaging drugs available for free to existing addicts, in a chemically pure, and relatively safe form, you reduce the need for criminality on the part of the addict to fuel their addiction. That removes the cost of incarceration, which can be funnelled into provision of the service, which will cost far less than the incarceration. Whats left over can be use to fund public health work, from HIV monitoring and treatment amongst drug users and sex workers, through to addiction treatment services, and still likely have money left over. You also break the income stream of the criminal organisations that produce the substances.
I believe international proletarian socialist revolution will solve all of humanity's problems.
Vive le Galt!
I believe international proletarian socialist revolution will solve all of humanity's problems.
Vive le Galt!
Will our problems be solved by killing us and replacing us with goblins?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You didn't read them, then. The countries were Germany, Sweden, Denmark, and the US. South American countries aren't generally too hit on liberalizing prostitution because of Catholicism. Canada is just now liberalizing prostitution, so there aren't a lot of studies of its effects. I'm also unsure what definition of "consenting adults" includes a job people only take for fear of utter destitution and where literal slavery is commonplace.
*sighs* Not who I'm talking about, here. Also, what part of "I don't want to have this argument" in bold was unclear?
And I read what you linked and did a cursory search on areas where prostitution is legal. I didn't hunt down all the cited sources. For reference.
As for definition, I have a friend who once engaged in a sex act for money. She only did it once, and didn't enjoy it much...but she wasn't raped or severely traumatized or abused. That's a possible example of what I mean by consenting adults. People have the right to make their own choices...even wrong ones, or ones you or I might not agree with. Having sex for money is such a decision.
Now...that decision being made by someone other than the woman in question is a definite problem, and one that needs to be eliminated completely before this kind of thing is widely accepted, but that's a practical matter, while I'm talking specifically about principles here.
The practical matter is definitely a far more important one than the principle I'm espousing...but the two aren't mutually exclusive in the way you seem to be implying.
In fact, you make the libertarian "writing and enforcing just laws is hard, might well legalize it all" argument twice. It is possible for drug and prostitution laws to not be a colossal train wreck, and it's not an either/or decision between the laws the US has now and full legalization. Decriminalizing and helping the victims of drugs and prostitution (addicts and prostitutes) while going after those who actually benefit from these black markets is an option. It just involves helping a bunch of poor people get out of exploitative relationships, so it's not terribly popular.
Now that we're getting away from prostitution, I'm actually willing to discuss this a bit more:
Just to start with, I'm actually entirely comfortable with making being a pimp (or running a brothel) illegal. Indeed, I think the idea of helping the victims of human traffocking while punishing the offenders is wonderful, and wholeheartedly support it. There are some logistical problems with the idea, but nothing insurmountable.
But it's when you start saying "You, woman over there, this is not a reason you're allowed to have sex." that I think you're stepping on people's fundamental right to decide such things for themselves.
I am also, for the record, all for beating sex traffickers to death with a shovel, as I find the things they do profoundly disgusting on every possible moral level. Rape, torture, and long-term abuse for profit? One of the most awful things I can think of.
Now, onto the more general point: I'm not being lazy or saying writing just laws about drugs or when and why an individual can have sex are hard. I'm saying that doing so is both fundamentally wrong on a moral level (maqking a 'just law' on it impossible), and that in the entire history of mankind, no such laws have actually served to stop the behavior in question. And that, well, as prohibition showed, when you make a desired comodity illegal, a new class of criminal will arise to provide it, and (being criminals already) will engage in various other criminal ventures such as murder and extortion.
Also, why is your "right" to overthrow the government more important than my right to democratically elect one, again?
Because power is force. You have the power to democratically elect a new government for precisely as long as the government lets you. They are a great deal more likely to keep such a right available if, were they to not, they would face violent overthrow. It's a matter of the balance odf power between a people and their government.
Or to put it another way: The right of the people to overthrow the government is the root of the right to elect it. If they can't do the first, their ability to do the second rests on a set of promises made by politicians...not something I'd choose to base my freedom on. Especially not on a generational basis.
I'd a million times rather elect a government than overthrow one...but as long as the people as a whole can overthrow it, that election is vastly more likely to be a legitimate one, and even to actually occur.
I'm not a lunatic, I know that, even did we lose all our guns tomorrow, the US has a long history of peacefully transitioning power, and that social trend would likely persist...but social trends can change, and strike me as a vastly shaky foundation for something like one's fundamental liberty, thinking long-term (and I mean generationally here).
I am going to agree with Andrew R on one thing though, but mainly for the sake of curiosity.
AMiB is well known for finding fault or opposition to arguments, but rarely has been the OP to initiate his stance and/or terms on such positions to open to response to defend his positions (although he has been in the past, but that hinged more on theorycrafting in the RPG forums). That said, I'd honestly like to see / read a list of where AMiB stands to get a clearer model as to exactly his positions in lieu of the current foil of playing devil's advocate.
This isn't to say that I disagree with AMiB; a lot of his positions I actually agree with even though I know he relishes on the aggrandizement of those he is in disagreement concerning their positions (and retrospectively, sometimes those individuals easily open themselves up to diatribes or satire because their initial stance isn't cognitively thought out from a short vs long term viewpoint and/or is clouded in ethno/ego-centrism).
I give Andrew R credit for at least putting himself out there to be open to engagement even though I conclusively believe that a lot of his positions aren't sound from my point of view. But hey, that's debate.
Quid pro quo.
|
|
I am going to agree with Andrew R on one thing though, but mainly for the sake of curiosity.
AMiB is well known for finding fault or opposition to arguments, but rarely has been the OP to initiate his stance and/or terms on such positions to open to response to defend his positions (although he has been in the past, but that hinged more on theorycrafting in the RPG forums). That said, I'd honestly like to see / read a list of where AMiB stands to get a clearer model as to exactly his positions in lieu of the current foil of playing devil's advocate.
This isn't to say that I disagree with AMiB; a lot of his positions I actually agree with even though I know he relishes on the aggrandizement of those he is in disagreement concerning their positions (and retrospectively, sometimes those individuals easily open themselves up to diatribes or satire because their initial stance isn't cognitively thought out from a short vs long term viewpoint and/or is clouded in ethno/ego-centrism).
I give Andrew R credit for at least putting himself out there to be open to engagement even though I conclusively believe that a lot of his positions aren't sound from my point of view. But hey, that's debate.
Quid pro quo.
But like i said, this is not a thread for proving who has the "better" opinions, it is a chance to share. if he wants to be part of the thread and share that would be awesome, if he is here to "win the internet" i would prefer he stay away. I honestly want nothing here but a chance to share opinions, not to to fight some dumbass battle to beat each others opinions.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
What is this, Facebook?
No. Paizo has a viable business model.
I'm pro-gun but anti-full auto. Keep in mind I'm anti-full auto for everyone. If the police are facing down an angry mob there's likely some reason the mob is there. This world needs more angry mobs.
I'm pro-choice. However, if you're using abortion as a birth control method then you're doing it wrong. Get the f+$@ing pill. Use a condom. Use a dildo. You have options.
I'm pro-drug for medical reasons. My grandfather died in excruciating pain from intestinal cancer. Heroin is the best painkiller you can get that balances mind-bending strength with manageable side effects.
I'm pro-assisted suicide. My great grandmother prayed every night for 20 years to be allowed to die. When she finally broke her leg at the age of 108 (one hundred and eight!) the family begged the doctor to let them turn the morphine up to 11. Luckily the doctor was human and turned a blind eye. Without that I don't know how long she would have lingered in agony.
I'm pro-free speech. Sure, go and protest a funeral with signs declaring the dead an abomination against your god. But the angry mob that comes after you for it has the same right to be heard as you do.
I'm pro-drug for recreational reasons. Take the drugs out of the hands of the criminals. Put them behind the counter of the Kwik-E-Mart and check IDs.
I'm pro-science. Research for research's sake. I'm tired of this "so what is it for?" question determining whether or not something gets grant money. Einstein wouldn't have been able to give a good answer to defend E = mc^2.
I'm pro-human testing, especially when the scientist gets involved. Artificial sweeteners were discovered by some guys finding a black goo and licking it for no sane reason. Scientists should be willing to test certain things on themselves. Bring back "no sane reason" as an excuse.
I'm pro-information. I support WikiLeaks. If the US didn't want to be embarrassed because they were caught insulting their so-called "allies" in official cables then don't do it in official cables. Have some tact, guys. Check if the mic is on first before bragging about banging your aide in the supply closet.
I'm pro-animal testing. We can do so much more with rodent analogues than we can with people. Seriously, you try popping open a baby's skull to see its brain decayed because of manganese exposure and suddenly you're up on murder charges. Doing the same thing to a rat is not just science, it's necessary.
I'm pro-marriage for everyone. If you want to be squicked by someone else's marriage that's fine. I'm squicked by my great aunt and uncle's marriage. They're first cousins to each other. Just because I'm squicked by it doesn't mean I have the right to dissolve or deny it. I do, however, reserve the right to speculate about the large amount of recessive genes in my family.
I'm pro-hunting so long as it's done wisely. Culling a deer population to prevent it from growing so large they die a long, painful death of starvation? Good. Keeping a non-native population of wild hogs in check so they don't destroy the native ecosystem? Good. Eating what you kill? Yummy. Trophy-hunting and leaving all the good stuff to rot? Bad. Killing off all the native predators because they haven't done anything yet? Bad.
I just listed some of the pros in my beliefs. Stayed away from almost all of the antis. Figured that's enough to get an idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What is this, Facebook?No. Paizo has a viable business model.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Since this is just saying our political beliefs without arguing or defending them, I'll just post the basics.
I'm Pro-Choice, 100%, all the time. Abortions should be legal and federally funded. I believe all men should be pro-choice by default. If you don't have a uterus, you don't get a say. Period.
The government needs to get out of marriage altogether. I feel that encouraging a lifestyle choice is discriminatory, and it's unfair that as somebody uninterested in being married there are several tax incentives and programs that are denied me because I'm not choosing the 'appropriate' path. That being said, it's unrealistic, and if the government insists on endorsing marriage, the denial of equal rights to gays is unconscionable.
The banks should not have been bailed out. The management should've been fired, the top executives jailed, and the banks nationalized. Iceland is a great model for this.
I support Universal Health Care.
Undocumented immigrants should have the same rights as full citizens, with advocates and the ability to sue for equitable compensation and benefits. Companies should still be punished for hiring them. Remove all incentive to hire, while still providing penalties, and boom, immigration problem solved.
I believe in a steeply progressive tax system in which the first $20,000 of all income is untaxed, with several tiers up to a top marginal rate of 90%. Capital gains would be taxed as income.
Eliminate the current system and replace it with a Parliamentary style government that provides proportional representation. Publicly financed elections with all private funding banned.
We need to stop the preferential treatment of religion. Tax the churches, only established scientific fact should be taught in public schools, and a completely secular government that does not endorse or fund religious establishments in any way. But people should be free to practice their faith individually.
Abolish the death penalty. Rationally, it is expensive and an ineffective deterrent. Ethically, you don't compensate for murder by making murderers of us all.
Scrap NDAA, the Patriot Act . . . bah, I'm not even going to bother listing them all here. You know the bogeymen every civil libertarian is going to put in their cross-hairs; just fill in the list yourself.
|
|
I'm saying to the john, "This is not a reason you are allowed to pay someone for sex." Like I said, I'm for decriminalizing prostitution, but pursuing pimps and johns. It's pointless and cruel to pursue people who are on the punishing side of an unequal arrangement. I'm not really interested in who has or why people have sex, but I do believe it's possible to make a just law that outlaws exercising power over people.
I'm not actually entirely against this position...though it seems a bit harsh to men who actually treat sex workers respectfully (a rarity, I'm aware), andf has the unfortunate side effect of eliminating prostitution as a career choice even for those occasional women who actually want to pursue it.
Probably a good idea as an interim measure, just to really kill off the current form of sex trafficking, but one I'd hope could be gotten rid of eventually. I'm talking about criminalizing beingb a john here, for reference. Criminalization of being a piump should probably continue forever.
Decriminalizing drug addiction and prostitution while criminalizing distribution and pimping does actually work, and can actually be done. Portugal is an example of the effects of decriminalizing drug use, and Sweden is an example of the effects of decriminalizing prostitution for everyone but prostitutes.
I agree that this is entirely possible. I don't think that necessarily makes it appropriate (particularly in regards to drugs). For reasons previously specified.
You have the power to overthrow a government for precisely as long as the government lets you, and your right to own guns rests on promises made by politicians. Why would a silly thing like a promise now to allow you to have ordnance stop a US-government-turned-totalitarian from just taking your guns?
It wouldn't. the fact that they're trying to take said guns away from, well, people with guns certainly might, though. I mean, part of this whole idea working is considering the removal of such arms entirely to be an example of an act that necessitates armed resistance.
It would be simple as pie to justify it even: you're armed to the teeth and have declared the intent to overthrow the government. Even legitimate democracies don't put up with that sort of thing.
I'm not advocating the violent overthrow of anything. Hell, I'd fight physically to prevent such a thing at the moment. I'm advocating that the people as a whole retain such a capability...just in case. Helps keep the government honest (well, honest-er anyway).
Now, removing guns from people who actually appear to be attempting to overthrow the government is entirely reasonable and...we do that already. But taking them away from law-abiding citizens? Not so much.
In the meantime, your proposal increases my chance to get shot or blown up by some idiot who has no idea what he's doing with military weapons, and increases the chance to see the government overthrown by fringe crazies.
Oh, I'm all for requiring things like certification. I'm hjst a 'shall issue' supporter, in terms of permits. Which means if you've passed the classes you can get the weapons. Period.
And fringe crazies are never going to have a meaningful chance of overthrowing the government unless they get either the whole population or the military on their side. If they do either of those two things, they're not exactly fringe, and, IMO, if they get to that point things have gotten so bad maybe they'll even be an improvement.
.
.
.
On another subject entirely, I'm pretty much with ANebulousMistress on hunting, information, and science. Go science.
I am for INDIVIDUAL freedoms. Basically this boils down to a list of things the state is NOT allowed to do to you. Also, this is not an issue of groups. If you have group-based rights, the best you can do is asymtotically approach equality before the law - there will always be some people that do not fit into any of the groups that have rights.
I am for guns. Yes, people die when they are used, and they will be used if they exist, but the alternative, totalitarian regime and mass executions of unfavoured groups, is far worse. The government should always fear the people.
I am against censorship. Nobody has the right to limit what you are allowed to see, read, hear or think, if you want to partake of it.
I am against non-personal surveillance of any kind. If the police has reason to study someone further, they can be allowed this if there is concrete suspicion. If not, they need to get the hell out of people's communication and lives. Yes, this is another case where people may die for enforcing this right. It's still a price I am willing to pay. Yes, even if it means that I, or my loved ones, may be killed. I would rather that they and I live or die with the freedom to make choices ourselves, than that we live (or die, the security theatre doesn't seem to work so well, does it?) without it.
I am against secrecy. I am aware this may be a tougher sell than the above. The current situation is this: The individual citizen has no right to expect privacy, apparently no matter what happens, according to the courts. As a consequence, then, neither should the state or any part of it, and nor should companies. Yes, it will hurt. It may cost us lives and money, but again, the alternative is far worse. Especially now, with technology at a level where most of the dystopic nightmares written about have become possible, we need to ensure a balance between the government and the governed.
As for death penalties, it's a disgrace. There are many arguments about this, but all of the others pale in comparison with this: New technology has found time and time again that executed people were innocent. Just to show how pretty the reasoning about this is, I gather that since this is a problem, the judicial authorities in certain states have decided that there ought to be a ban on using DNA technology to review old cases. Yeah.
Abortion is an issue where religious people are seeking the right to decide for others what to think and do. They have had entirely too much success in this. Just remember the price of not providing legal abortions.
Regarding prostitution, it's apparently the case with the swedish law that the prostitutes feel it has gotten more dangerous to work since it was instituted. The "nice" johns stay at home, because illegal is illegal. Left are those who don't care. Also noteworthy is that there are a lot of prostitutes in Sweden who want a change in the law (usually, they want decriminalization along the lines of the New Zeeland law), but currently working prostitutes are not asked when the government does evaluations of the law, only "reformed" prostitutes. When they made the last evaluation, the directives from the government was that the evaluation was not allowed to reach a recommendation that the law be removed.
Someone in the upper echelons of Sweden WANT that law, and no evaluation has been done, or is possible, while those people remain.
It's possible, but not a good idea, in all probability. If it worked perfectly, they would have regular evaluations with impressive figures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that in no case are someone's beliefs, religious or otherwise, more important than another person's right to self-determination. Full Stop. No exceptions.
Therefore I see the "pro-life" and anti-gay marriage positions as fundamentally bigoted and more than a little bit arrogant.
I also deplore the lionization of anti-intelectualism and willful ignorance which is endemic among large segments of the population in the US. We are not going to fix any of our problems until we become able to collectively make rational decisions based on what is actually the case, as opposed to what we feel should be the case.
I think a large part of the legitimization of that attitude is found in the post-modern ideas. If there is no objective truth, then nobody can really say that someone else is wrong. Remains only to see who can force their opinion through to the lawmakers - might makes right.
-I'm Roman Apostholic Catholic.
-I'm anti-guns.
-I'm anti-death penalty.
-I'm pro-life.
-I'm anti-euthanasia.
-I believe religious teaching belongs in religion classes, and scientific teaching in scientific classes.
-I believe the State should focus on Subsidiarity, giving full welfare assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves.
-I believe Free Market is the best economic system when coupled with the former point.
-I also believe said Free Market needs to be regulated to keep it as a proper Free Market. Namely, ensure free competition and free flow of information to both consumers and producers.
-I'm pro-religious freedom, both in private and in public.
-I believe in freedom of speech. I would like speakers in general to be more ethical about what they do, but that's more of an issue with the media/informers themselves than the idea of free speech.
-I think all schools should have at least one class on comparative religion.
-I believe in Representative Democracy.
-I'm against the legalization of drugs, though I have no problems with some of them if they are for actual medical reasons.
-I'm against alcohol.
-I think tobacco should be banned in public places, but I don't really have a problem with people smoking in their private homes.
-I have no problem with homosexuals getting married.
-I believe in the right of parents to decide the education and formation of their children, but with the State monitoring that some fundamentals are met.
-I believe that people should always be seen as an end and never as a mean.
-I believe the guiding principle of any scientific advance should be the betterment of human life.
-I do believe there are certain fundamental and non-relative moral imperatives.
-I'm a strong supporter of alternative energy sources.
-I'm pro-animal rights.
-I think people should once again wear top hats and stylish XIX century beards.
Regarding prostitution, it's apparently the case with the swedish law that the prostitutes feel it has gotten more dangerous to work since it was instituted. The "nice" johns stay at home, because illegal is illegal. Left are those who don't care. Also noteworthy is that there are a lot of prostitutes in Sweden who want a change in the law (usually, they want decriminalization along the lines of the New Zeeland law), but currently working prostitutes are not asked when the government does evaluations of the law, only "reformed" prostitutes. When they made the last evaluation, the directives from the government was that the evaluation was not allowed to reach a recommendation that the law be removed.
Someone in the upper echelons of Sweden WANT that law, and no evaluation has been done, or is possible, while those people remain.
It's possible, but not a good idea, in all probability. If it worked perfectly, they would have regular evaluations with impressive figures.
So as is, it's not illegal to be a prostitute, but it's illegal to 'purchase' one?
<boggle>
Thats...an interesting stance.
Yes. The government is doing what it can to prevent prostitutes who do not agree with this law from speaking in the media, apparently.
According to that article the logic was to empower women to do what they wanted with their bodies, but to also prevent people like pimps and human trafficers from exploiting them. But they ended up with a law that does neither and looks to have exacerbated the problem.