One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Who is a True Patriot in America
Page <<first <prev 11 of 11
Mar 16, 2013 13:27:26   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
zonkedout1 wrote:
On the issue of patriotism, Steven Pinker refers to it as 1 step in the ever expanding circle of inclusion. Me, I used to think it was ideal oriented, the geopolitical, and then finally I decided it was a weapon that governments use against their own people. In its best form, it is an alignment of ideals (which can have poor outcomes i.e. germanic p***e)at its worst, it can be a tool used to confuse people who have aligned themselves with symbols i.e. the f**g, the office is bigger than the man who occupies it, our guys wouldn't do what the other guys are doing. Think 'A few good men' and MK-Ultra. So, would I sacrifice a thousand arabs to save one American, maybe. A thousand democrats to save one republican, maybe. But, in more solid terms, would I sacrifice anybody to save Michael Moore or Pat Buchanan....No, never, not even once. Sorry, I lost focus. The question isn't necessarily, who is more patriotic. I think a lot of bad people have been very patriotic. For me, it enters into, why are ideas of patriotism so pick and choose, like new age spirituality. Some people love the f**g, some the government, some the constitution, some the police, and I'm sure some, the geographical location. Just as the eskimoes have 32 different adjectives for snow, maybe we should develop some adjectives for the form of patriotism we practice.
On the issue of patriotism, Steven Pinker refers t... (show quote)


I find it hard to disagree with anything you wrote.

Reply
Mar 16, 2013 14:20:00   #
zonkedout1 Loc: Wyoming
 
. I do believe a large percentage of the population v**es against conservatives simply because of their position on it.[/quote]

I would agree

Reply
Mar 16, 2013 16:26:51   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
Voice of Reason wrote:
memBrain wrote:
It's all about selfishness. One making such a decision is saying (to the unborn) you are not more important than me. You are inconvenient. In short, they are unwilling to acknowledge the child, so they trivialize it, and relegate it to inhuman status...to justify the decision to commit murder. After all, if it's not truly HUMAN, if it's not truly ALIVE, then surely it cannot be murder.


Let's assume first that everything you said is correct. Let's also assume that you disagree with the "one making such a decision".

So, what you're saying is that a******n is murdering a completely innocent human being. Then you go on to say that in certain "mitigating circumstances" where it is inconvenient for you to argue against it, that murdering a completely innocent human being should be allowed (legal).

I think that you should be very careful about what you wish for.
quote=memBrain It's all about selfishness. One m... (show quote)


You misread the conversation. I never said what I believe. Remember that you are the one who started off by saying that conservatives had no valid argument against a******n because they made allowances for specific events. All I did was take their side of the argument and show how your reasoning in that case was wrong. I also pointed out that it is an imperfect world. My personal views are that there is no justification for taking ANY life no matter how consequential. That does include death row inmates. However, we are a community of laws, and consequences for breaking those laws. As such I do believe that a death sentence does lead to justice. Our appeals process d**gs that justice out so long that it can be deemed cruel and unusual. I'm also against life imprisonment. If you are going to take life, then take life. Don't be a coward about it. Also, for the record, I am prepared to take life if the circumstances warrant it. Everything would be by the book on that account. I'd follow the rules of engagement, and the use of deadly force as defined by the military during my time of service. There would be nothing casual about it, and it would be in the defense of my life or others. I see nothing hypocritical about my view. As I said, this is not a perfect world. I would much rather people find personal salvation than to die in sin. If you know the story of Sergeant York, I think that sums up my view succinctly.

Reply
 
 
Mar 16, 2013 16:42:38   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
Voice of Reason wrote:
zonkedout1 wrote:
I'm sorry. I showed poor threadiquette. I've been trying to quit smoking for five days and my brain can't move laterally like it generally can.

A******n just isn't my issue. I do think it should be a tenth amendment issue adopting a community standards policy.

A person can't convince me that potential life is an adequate argument for making a******n illegal and what are you worried about. It's not like the potential republican to potential democrat ratio isn't skewed in your favor.

The categorical imperative argument that murder in any case is murder in every case feels weak.

But, like I said, I've got other things that I'm more concerned about.
I'm sorry. I showed poor threadiquette. I've been ... (show quote)

It isn't mine either and I agree that other things are more important. In fact, a candidate's position on a******n is not even a consideration for me.

However, I just wanted to point out where I think the conservative position on a******n is wrong, and why. I do believe a large percentage of the population v**es against conservatives simply because of their position on it.
quote=zonkedout1 I'm sorry. I showed poor threadi... (show quote)

And all I did was point out to you why conservatives position on a******n isn't wrong. What we have here is a case were we must agree to disagree.

For the record, I do not see myself as a conservative. When looking at the issues, my personal belief is more of a Libertarian anarchist. I want little to no participation by the government in my life or the life of others. I agree with conservatives on the issue of a******n, but that doesn't mean that I agree on every bullet point. Ask me about my view on the war on drugs.

zonkedout1 wrote:
On the issue of patriotism, Steven Pinker refers to it as 1 step in the ever expanding circle of inclusion. Me, I used to think it was ideal oriented, the geopolitical, and then finally I decided it was a weapon that governments use against their own people. In its best form, it is an alignment of ideals (which can have poor outcomes i.e. germanic p***e)at its worst, it can be a tool used to confuse people who have aligned themselves with symbols i.e. the f**g, the office is bigger than the man who occupies it, our guys wouldn't do what the other guys are doing. Think 'A few good men' and MK-Ultra. So, would I sacrifice a thousand arabs to save one American, maybe. A thousand democrats to save one republican, maybe. But, in more solid terms, would I sacrifice anybody to save Michael Moore or Pat Buchanan....No, never, not even once. Sorry, I lost focus. The question isn't necessarily, who is more patriotic. I think a lot of bad people have been very patriotic. For me, it enters into, why are ideas of patriotism so pick and choose, like new age spirituality. Some people love the f**g, some the government, some the constitution, some the police, and I'm sure some, the geographical location. Just as the eskimoes have 32 different adjectives for snow, maybe we should develop some adjectives for the form of patriotism we practice.
On the issue of patriotism, Steven Pinker refers t... (show quote)

You hit the nail on the head when you said that patriotism is about ideals. The problem with ideals is that they are far from ideal. Moreover, whose ideals are they? Are they representative of the culture that possesses them? More importantly is the individual's interpretation of ideals. Those interpretations can lead to results that are counter to the intent of the original ideal. Case in point, the United States of America. We have historically had two prevailing philosophies regarding the expansion of our country, Divine Providence and Manifest Destiny. Divine Providence is to take steps in the world, and let God's will be done. Manifest Destiny is we are on the side of God and can do no wrong. Members of either view would see themselves as patriotic. They are both pursuing the prosperity of our nation. However, can you guess under which of these philosophies we have had the worst humanitarian disasters in the history of our country? If you said when Manifest Destiny prevailed, you'd be correct. So, ultimately, you are right when you say that patriotism is largely a weapon used against the people by the prevailing power within he government.

Reply
Mar 16, 2013 17:29:09   #
Voice of Reason Loc: Earth
 
memBrain wrote:
You misread the conversation...


I apologize. Please be aware that it was an honest misunderstanding.

Given that, my posting should have read:

So, what conservatives are saying is that a******n is murdering a completely innocent human being. Then they go on to say that in certain "mitigating circumstances" where it is inconvenient for them to argue against it, that murdering a completely innocent human being should be allowed (legal).

I think that they should be very careful about what they wish for.

Reply
Mar 17, 2013 15:55:45   #
memBrain Loc: North Carolina (No longer in hiding.)
 
Apology unnecessary, though appreciated. I often like to play devils advocate if I think an issue hasn't been properly exposed. Ignoring the politics surrounding a******n for a moment, we have to look at the ramifications of a******n on society.

Each aborted fetus is a potential taxpayer. That means that a******n potentially decreases the future income of the State/Federal Government. Let us not also forget all the years of economic activity surrounding this aborted fetus, it will need clothes, food, shelter, an education, etc. This further stimulates the economy and adds to the tax pool the government draws upon.

For the sake of argument, it's not all good news. The authors of Freakanomics discovered some interesting facts surrounding a******ns. Those of us who lived through the '80s may recall the expected rise in crime due to disaffected juveniles that was supposed to be on the increase? Well, it never happened. The authors found a strong correlation between a reduction in juvenile crime rates and a******ns. It would appear that the reason the crime boom of the '90s and '00s didn't occur due to the perpetrators never being born. However, does this fact justify a******n? Let us not forget that for every criminal that was not born, we may have lost the next Einstein, the creator of the cure for cancer, of aids, etc.

As you can see, this problem isn't cut and dry from any perspective. It demonstrates just how imperfect our world is.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 11 of 11
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.