Social Politics Thread

Discuss topics that are unrelated to Ace Attorney Online, introduce yourself if you're new and read the latest Member of the Month interview.

Moderators: EN - Assistant Moderators, EN - Forum Moderators

User avatar
Ping'
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:23 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Français, English, Español
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Ping' »

E.D.Revolution wrote:But you can't be born gay. And until that's proven false, that's a fact.
> As BP said, the idea that something is true until proven false is logically inconsistent. It would necessarily lead to several contradictory things being true at the same time. If the condition for your argument to hold is for A not to equal A, it's a difficult argument to make.
At best, you can only say that there is no perfectly conclusive evidence that you can be born gay, not that there is evidence that you can't.
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Bad Player »

You guys mean "I don't understand what it is" or "I don't understand how someone can feel that way"?

Also changed the link in my previous post (same article, different site)
User avatar
Hodou Okappa
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:19 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Hodou Okappa »

E.D.Revolution wrote:Case in point for the last point: Westboro Baptist Church :roll:

Ping is right in many of his points, but I'd rather take the question back to the VERY fundamental question. Trust me, I've seen some research on being born gay. It's not good research, and even the good research isn't conclusive. Still, I'd rather not think that it's possible to be born gay. You can grow up to be gay and choose your identity. But you can't be born gay. And until that's proven false, that's a fact.

And if you're wondering. I can stop loving a person dearest to me (soulless person, am I? :P ), though that's usually a matter of how long I stop loving. I can't fall in love with a guy. I might sound fake, but I'd rather take a detached POV on this type of question.
Well, technically it's not possible to be "born" gay, straight, or bi, since you aren't sexual in any way when you're born. Those changes happen when you hit puberty.

But in your last point, I'd say you prove yourself wrong, almost. Just as you can't actually fall in love with a guy, there are many men who simply can't fall in love with women. Is it right to tell them that they "chose" to be gay, when it's just naturally the way their mind works? Sure, they could technically "choose" to be heterosexual, but they'd be lying about it. They'd spend their entire lives miserable.\

Unas where'd you go? T.T
Also known as: okappa, houdou.
User avatar
Unas
Admin / Site programmer
Posts: 8850
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:43 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Français, English, Español
Contact:

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Unas »

Here I am at last. Sorry for not answering earlier, I've been busy at school - and I'll probably be this weekend too, since I have exams next week.
Anyway, let me just say I'm quite glad of how this discussion is actually staying an intelligent debate rather than the flame war that can happen when dealing with this kind of topics on the Internet.
Bad Player wrote:
Bad Player wrote:Moreoever, scientists have found homosexual behavior in I think... over 50 different species. Have those species died out from lack of procreation?
More like bisexual behaviour, actually. See the explanation I gave above - bisexuality is obviously not as much a problem as far as procreation is concerned. And these animals don't have to face the "trendy" and "cool, let's try it" problem I mentioned - as it stays random, the numbers stay low for most species.
But part of the reason it's "trendy" and "cool" is b/c it's opposed by 'the man'. If it was authorized and accepted, it would no longer be "hip". (Or at least that would deal with part of it.)
Actually that's the same argument some people use when talking about the legalisation of drugs. "Young people drug themselves because of the thrill of doing something forbidden, or because they want to feel like rebels". Still, I don't think it legalising free access to it would solve the problem, and it's too dangerous material to just try that randomly.
And, just like in the case of gay marriage, there have been people complaining that preventing access to drugs was depriving a category of people of what they needed to be happy, etc. Yet, most people still agree that it shouldn't be freely distributed.
Likewise, I believe the legalisation of gay marriage to present a danger. Granted, a much more indirect and long-term one and, as Ping' said, one that we would probably have time to see coming if we were to give it a try. Still, a risk nonetheless.

Also, Ping' :
Ping' wrote:But the fact that the consequences only occur in the long term makes such precaution unnecessary. Why not try legalizing homosexual marriage? If, as you claim, it has a strong impact on procreation that ends up threatening our very existence, we should be able to see it coming before it's too late, and reverse the policy anyway.
I'm not so sure about that : policies are a hard thing to change when voted. Take the 35-hours working week in France, for example. It has proved to be disastrous economically, and most people recognise it was a mistake. Yet, even Sarkozy, who is far from supporting it, only added some ways around it, but didn't cancel the law...
Bad Player wrote:If your real beef is with the state using the word "marriage" at all, this isn't really about same-sex marriage.
This point is indeed not really about same-sex marriage, but the whole evolution of "marriage" since the word has been taken on by states. Think of it as "bonus", aside from my other arguments, though - it's far from being my "real beef". :wink:
Bad Player wrote:That would certainly be convincing... if not for the fact that the Netherland's fertility rate has been 1.7 for the past 35 years. I'm not going to go through all these countries, but looking at that I think it's pretty clear same-sex marriage has not influenced it, or at least does not account for the large difference between the fertility rates of the countries with same-sex marriage and France+Ireland. (There's also the fact that there are plenty of countries without same-sex marriage that have comparable or lower fertility rates to countries that do have it.)
Bad, thank you :mrgreen:
Actually, I knew these numbers when I wrote this passage - I had a WHO report under my eyes :-P. I quoted "selected" numbers anyway because they fit well in my argument wondering if anyone would go so far as check them. Thanks for proving to me that one can't assert inexact things everywhere ! :mrgreen: And thanks for making me discover Google Public Data, too, I didn't know about it ^^
Anyway, I have nothing more to answer on this point : of course, you're right, these numbers don't support my argument. I did mention, however, that I didn't place much trust in how these numbers would represent a real long term evolution :-)
Ping' wrote:The same applies to abortion and other policies that might theoretically change our demographics.
Except that abortion is ethically a very different thing.
In the case of gay marriage, though I am against it for several reasons, most of those are a matter of personal belief about love and such. I think it's bad, but I can't blame people that say it's good. The only "universal" argument (that is, one that anyone can understand, independently of their faith and beliefs) I can present is the one about the survival of the species, and as you say it's a very long term one, that could be tested.
As far as abortion is concerned, however, it's a different thing. I do think it's "objectively" bad. As I said earlier, it consists of destroying a living being which genetic material matches that of the human species. And unless you can provide me with a flawless definition of a human being other than "living being which genetic material matches that of the human species", I'll shorten this as destroying a human being. In real short, murder. And murder is quite universally recognised as being bad.
So, legalising gay marriage temporarily to observe the evolution : bad in my opinion, but tolerable. Legalising murder in any form, for whichever reason : intolerable.
Ping' wrote:it is not fair to deprive them of a way of realizing their goals and reaching happiness that is available to all heterosexuals
What keeps amazing me as I read this discussion is that people in support of gay marriage keep alternating between two positions :
  • Marriage is just a piece of paper : how does it matter anyway ?
  • Marriage is essential for happiness
Though you, Ping', seem to have a point of view closer to mine; that is, saying that marriage is more than just a piece of paper, and yet only one of several ways of reaching happiness.
Where we differ, though, is that depriving someone of one way to happiness among many others is not that much of a big deal considering the number of possibilities. Life deprives us of many of those ways naturally, yet not everyone is depressed in this world.
E.D.Revolution wrote:I thought this was about social politics, not a pure discussion on LGBT rights :/
It is - Truf's post about gay marriage just happened to be the first that made me react. :wink:
Any other subject is welcome, though.
Ping' wrote:Whenever the cause of a situation is pure chance, inequality isn't morally justifiable.
According to your morals :wink:
I'm digressing again from the topic of gay marriage, but I remember mentioning in another politics thread (I don't remember if it was the one here or the one in the French section, but you were there, Ping') that I have several ideals that top equality.
At the top of my values is the happiness of each. Note the difference between "each" and "everyone as a whole". In my opinion, people are different, and do not require the same things to be happy - therefore, I only see equality as a "failsafe" : if all else fails, equality isn't bad, but to me there are reasons that may justify breaking it.
Singidava wrote:Could you stop loving the person dearest to you if you wanted to?
Actually, yes, to some extent and under some conditions. It did happen to me.
Sorry for the soap romance here - I don't go telling my life everywhere usually - but since you want an example... Long story short, I fell in love with a girl, that got another boyfriend before I actually confessed to her. I still loved her - she hadn't even done anything mean to me, since she didn't know about my real feelings - but that love was hurting me. It took me a while, but I eventually consciously decided to extract that love from my mind and heart and - ta da - here I am. I remember those feelings, but they no longer direct my thoughts, and I can talk with this girl normally, without my heart beating faster as it used to do then...
So yes, if you really want it, and have a good reason to do so, love can be "canceled".
The question is whether you have a good reason or not... And only yourself can judge of that at this point. But I agree that social conventions are not good reasons to me; good reasons are the ones that involve avoiding to hurt people's - mine and/or someone else's - feelings.
ImageImageImage
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Si le savoir peut créer des problèmes, ce n'est pas l'ignorance qui les résoudra. ( Isaac Asimov )
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Bad Player »

Unas wrote:Here I am at last. Sorry for not answering earlier, I've been busy at school - and I'll probably be this weekend too, since I have exams next week.
Anyway, let me just say I'm quite glad of how this discussion is actually staying an intelligent debate rather than the flame war that can happen when dealing with this kind of topics on the Internet.
Wb... for now, at least :P
Actually that's the same argument some people use when talking about the legalisation of drugs. "Young people drug themselves because of the thrill of doing something forbidden, or because they want to feel like rebels". Still, I don't think it legalising free access to it would solve the problem, and it's too dangerous material to just try that randomly.
And, just like in the case of gay marriage, there have been people complaining that preventing access to drugs was depriving a category of people of what they needed to be happy, etc. Yet, most people still agree that it shouldn't be freely distributed.
Likewise, I believe the legalisation of gay marriage to present a danger. Granted, a much more indirect and long-term one and, as Ping' said, one that we would probably have time to see coming if we were to give it a try. Still, a risk nonetheless.
Hmm... I can't deny the similarity in the arguments for drugs and gay marriage (will drugs be your my slavery? :P), but the "dangers" of drugs and of gay marriage are pretty different. It also still doesn't discredit the line of thinking.

Bad Player wrote:That would certainly be convincing... if not for the fact that the Netherland's fertility rate has been 1.7 for the past 35 years. I'm not going to go through all these countries, but looking at that I think it's pretty clear same-sex marriage has not influenced it, or at least does not account for the large difference between the fertility rates of the countries with same-sex marriage and France+Ireland. (There's also the fact that there are plenty of countries without same-sex marriage that have comparable or lower fertility rates to countries that do have it.)
Bad, thank you :mrgreen:
Actually, I knew these numbers when I wrote this passage - I had a WHO report under my eyes :-P. I quoted "selected" numbers anyway because they fit well in my argument wondering if anyone would go so far as check them. Thanks for proving to me that one can't assert inexact things everywhere ! :mrgreen: And thanks for making me discover Google Public Data, too, I didn't know about it ^^
Anyway, I have nothing more to answer on this point : of course, you're right, these numbers don't support my argument. I did mention, however, that I didn't place much trust in how these numbers would represent a real long term evolution :-)
:P
(Also, I didn't know about it either... I just googled Netherlands fertility rate xD)
Ping' wrote:it is not fair to deprive them of a way of realizing their goals and reaching happiness that is available to all heterosexuals
What keeps amazing me as I read this discussion is that people in support of gay marriage keep alternating between two positions :
  • Marriage is just a piece of paper : how does it matter anyway ?
  • Marriage is essential for happiness
Though you, Ping', seem to have a point of view closer to mine; that is, saying that marriage is more than just a piece of paper, and yet only one of several ways of reaching happiness.
Where we differ, though, is that depriving someone of one way to happiness among many others is not that much of a big deal considering the number of possibilities. Life deprives us of many of those ways naturally, yet not everyone is depressed in this world.
Hmm... Certainly an interesting observation~
Perhaps it's because marriage really is just a piece of paper (along with a bunch of small fiscal benefits :P) that can provide great happiness to some.
I would also point out that you aren't refuting Frenchy's point, but if you were to refute it, you'd probably be repeating your "It's a danger to society as a whole" view (but tacking on a "Obviously, we shouldn't let the species die off to satisfy a few") so... :P



EDIT: Just for lulz and more discussion~
About abortion... I'm personally pro-choice. I know the zygote/embryo/whatever has human genetic material (as does my hair and HeLa) but I also don't think it's fair to a woman who is not in a position to raise a child, physically/financially/emotionally/etc. You can consider it "murder" in a sense, but the conditions justify it, in my opinion.* I do think that women who don't want/are ready for children should use birth control, but this option should still be available.

*: Okay, the conditions don't always justify abortion. And if you want to ask me if I ever consider murder of any sort justified, hello justified self-defense (no pun intended xD)
User avatar
Unas
Admin / Site programmer
Posts: 8850
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:43 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Français, English, Español
Contact:

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Unas »

By the way, re-reading the topic I found some interesting things I had forgotten to answer.
Hodou Okappa wrote:As for why half of first marriages are resulting in divorce, I would argue it's not that divorce is more appealing now, but that marriage is. The media plays marriage up as an end-all, be-all goal to life. "If you aren't married, what are you? And don't you want to get her that perfect engagement ring~? You've been dating for two years now. Isn't it time?! Man, what's wrong with you?"
I have to agree with you on that point. I can rant again about civil marriage forgetting progressively about all the values that it had : to some person, it now looks like more of a trendy picture and a social status than a real expression of love. This is why I say civil union hardly deserves the name of marriage anymore.
Hodou Okappa wrote:Democracy, in its purest form, is a government in which the majority of the people get to have their way. But we're talking about the rights of a minority group. It's not exactly logical to have a majority vote on the minority's rights, since it's not the majority who's being affected.
It would be completely illogical to have minorities voting laws about themselves without asking the majority - voting has no meaning if you take a population of agreeing people.
Murderers are a minority - does it mean they can legalise murder ? Even if it was murder only between themselves, I don't remember people being very enthusiastic about gang wars.
The only situation in which a minority could vote such laws is if you consider a despotic system : the small class of leaders can decide about both themselves and the rest. I don't personally think it's necessarily so much worse than democracy, but that's probably not what you were aiming at.
Hodou Okappa wrote:I do actually believe that organized religion can take part in moving society forward if it's willing to criticize itself and accept change.
The established structure of a religion can change - its values cannot. By nature, the values of a religion are inherited by an eternal God - changing them is meaningless.
Their understanding can change, too, if it's made clear that they were previously misunderstood. However, this is the result of theologists' thinking; change is certainly not a reaction to society. In that case you'd have a political party, not a religion.
Hodou Okappa wrote:there would be no need or logical reason for Descartes to risk that given that he did, after all, come to his own conclusion that God exists and is benevolent as a necessary condition to his own existence.
I'm just curious here : you previously said the church misinterpreted Descartes' proof of the existence of God, and now you do admit that it was his own conclusion ? Then what was the misinterpretation ? :random:
Hodou Okappa wrote:Of course, it's entirely possible there was no "filter," but the initial message remains the same - to ignore that which you would normally take to faith; not to reject it forever, but so that you may see for yourself what is true. That alone is pretty much the opposite of the Church's message.
I don't know what Church message you're talking about, but as far as I'm concerned, I've always seen a "combined approach" in the catholic Church :
  • During the mass, the priest exposes different important themes in the texts that were read, and gives a starting point for thinking.
  • People are invited to read the texts again and and think about their meaning, alone and/or in small groups
It's not the passive thing you seem to think it is...
Bad Player wrote:I think what Hodou means is that b/c of all the Christians, it's 'rigged' to go whichever way Christianity dictates, with people blindly following it without looking and the facts and making a decision themselves.
And again, what gives you the right to say that religious people are not making a decision themselves ?
Phantom wrote:Geno, I know for a fact that you're overreacting to what Hodou's saying... You might not agree with it, but can you at least respect where he's trying to get at? I'm from the South too, yet I take no offense to what he's saying, there's no need to pick out and overblowa FEW words out of his long quote. It's his opinion after all after all :/ (and with a legitimate foundation too).
I fail to see a lack of respect in Geno's post; he did not even question the legitimacy of Okappa's arguments, since his comment about the south was only a side note. I mean, remove the "Especially in the south" sentence from Okappa's post and you get... exactly the same argument.
Geno only protested against this small sentence as a possible expression of a frequent tendency in the US, that is presenting the South as a bunch of hateful bigots, and the North as developed states that know better.
I believe it's Okappa's job, not yours, to explain what he means - and he did.

Whether he did that consciously or not, what Geno did is actually an important "strategy" in debating, that I often use : presenting the worst possible interpretation of one's sayings, to force him to refine and elaborate his position - and hopefully bringing him to admit your views in the process.

And actually, Phantom, you're using a similar pattern when you take geno's post and present it as a lack of respect. You over-interpret it to discredit it. It's to be expected in a debate, but be careful when using that. First, because it's not always very constructive, if you over interpret too much - the other one will end up repeating exactly the same; Second, because it can get on people's nerves to have what they say distorted.
These advice apply for everyone - though so far it seems no one went too far -, but in your particular case, Phantom, seeing communication between you and Geno have been quite... tense lately, I do not think it is wise to use that. I did say at the beginning of the topic that I didn't want this thread to hurt the sensibilities of people. :)

And last, on the core of the argument : Geno says "I've travelled and seen that North wasn't that much better than South" and you basically answer by giving arguments about how the South is bad - if you wanted to refute his argument, logically you'd have to prove that the North is actually better, which you didn't really do.
And I'm quite sure Geno knows his country as well as you do, so no need to insist about how more "definite" your knowledge is and "diverse" your sources are by putting these words in uppercase; this is pretty pretentious.


And now, Bad's last post :
Bad Player wrote:I would also point out that you aren't refuting Frenchy's point
Actually, I am. I imply that removing one of many possible path is hardly more unfair than life itself. You may argue that life itself is unfair, but unfortunately that won't lead you very far :-P
Bad Player wrote:About abortion... I'm personally pro-choice. I know the zygote/embryo/whatever has human genetic material (as does my hair and HeLa) but I also don't think it's fair to a woman who is not in a position to raise a child, physically/financially/emotionally/etc.
You have two possibilities here. Either the sexual act was wanted by the woman, or it wasn't.
If it was, then there is no question of fairness. It's her choice, and her responsibility.
If it wasn't, then that's called a rape, and it fortunately represents a clear minority of cases. In these ones, abortion might be tolerable - but that's hardly an argument. Defending a general law based on that principle is basically saying that rape is a current situation for all women...
You mention the self-defence right - it's a failsafe that only authorises murder in a specific situation : the law was already broken by someone else attempting to kill you. It doesn't give you the right to kill anyone at will.
I could tolerate a similar abortion right : a failsafe in case the law was already broken (by a rapist, here), but not an authorisation to commit murder in any circumstance.
ImageImageImage
If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them.
Si le savoir peut créer des problèmes, ce n'est pas l'ignorance qui les résoudra. ( Isaac Asimov )
User avatar
Hodou Okappa
Posts: 5087
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 7:19 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Hodou Okappa »

So far you agree to disagree with me on a number of things, to the point where I have just one thing left to clarify:
I'm just curious here : you previously said the church misinterpreted Descartes' proof of the existence of God, and now you do admit that it was his own conclusion ? Then what was the misinterpretation ? :random:
Yes, Descartes came to the conclusion that God exists. But he did so without any help from the Church, by initially disregarding the Bible and everything they teach. He believed that without those things, it was still possible and even inevitable to come to the conclusion that God exists, and is good.

What he meant was "You don't need religion to tell you where God is. Don't take everything you're told at face value, because in God's world you can see for yourself what's true and what's not."

The Church, for a while, seemed to interpret this as "God is definitely real, so you should all follow our religion, and take everything we say at face value." Naturally, Descartes saw no real point in correcting them.

That's all I meant there. I have no doubt that Descartes meant what he was saying in regards to the existence of God. I don't mean to criticize the ontological argument itself, like Kant, nor do I mean to say I believe Descartes was entirely right. So I think it's kind of silly to keep bringing him up past this point, as it's far from the original argument and I was only bringing his name up to criticize blindly following religion anyway -- to make the key distinction between those who believe there is God and those who are TOLD there is God. There's especially no point in arguing it with you, Unas, as your argument is entirely non-religious.
Also known as: okappa, houdou.
User avatar
FenrirDarkWolf
Posts: 7559
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 4:30 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Contact:

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by FenrirDarkWolf »

Hmm.
AKABuddyFaithAKADiego
Spoiler : Wanted to use these as avatars, but it wouldn't let me. They're by Nibroc-Rock :
Image
User avatar
Ping'
Posts: 843
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 12:23 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: Français, English, Español
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Ping' »

About your discussion on majority/minority, it's like the saying, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner. But indeed, if we adopt the view that a minority can vote for itself, then you make it possible that one wolf can vote for two sheep, as your murderer/oligarch example illustrates.
In my opinion, the solution to that dilemma is if the constitutional order in which democracy takes place does not just reflect the will of a small majority, but could be justified to society as a whole. Those arrangements typically lead to constitutional protection of minorities: a minority can't vote its own laws, but the majority can't vote laws whose only objective is to work to the detriment of that minority without serving a larger social goal that's beneficial for all of society either. Once that primary order is respected, I think we can all agree that minorities have a duty to respect the law of the majority, otherwise it's anarchy.
That's why theoretically, a decision on homosexual marriage could very well come out of a constitutional judge. Personally though, I think that democracy is mature to decide on this matter. People aren't completely self-interested, they have values, obey various norms, etc. so not heteros are against homosexual marriage. On the contrary, polls show that in several countries, close to a majority of heteros are for it. If the wolves suddenly start empathizing with the sheep, there's really no reason not to have a vote, because the wolves won't be voting as wolves.

Anyway. Regarding the limitation that my definition is according to my morals, absolutely. There are several ways of approaching morals that can lead to a reasonable consensus ; as I believe I've also said in the French politics topic, I think that the incompleteness theorem applies to moral doctrines too. Looking at our posts, you seem to be a utilitarian (greatest happiness principle with a liberal touch, since it's "each" rather than "as a whole", possibly within a larger moral framework), and I'm a rawlsian. I happen to be a rawlsian that holds that utilitarianism and rawlsian principles are almost always compatible, and only the justification differs. As a result, I'm also a utilitarian, though a rawlsian first if the two approaches enter into conflict.
My problem with utilitarianism (granted, Rawls' idea of fairness somewhat suffers from the same flaws, but not to the same extent...) is that there are literally thousands of ways to interpret it. How you define happiness, whose happiness you seek, how you quantify it... this makes the true nature of utilitarianism ambiguous, as you can't predict the results you'll reach with it.
For instance, I would argue that the "greatest happiness principle" leads to egalitarianism anyway, especially if you're looking for the happiness of "each".
Incidentally, I completely agree that different people have different conceptions of happiness, most of which are justifiable to the extent that they don't prevent others from reaching their own.
But most critically, I don't see equality as THE value. I would also be prepared to break my commitment to equality if even more essential values were under threat. My central values are a mix of Kant and relativism: the most evil wrongs are those that the human race couldn't live with. That is, if you had to explain your behaviour to an assembly of all human beings, they would strongly reject it. Genocide would be the classical example. Then there are the values your specific society couldn't live with, then your social partners (family included), then your family, yourself, a specific part of yourself... Ideally there should be a clear hierarchy that goes like this: you are expected to respect norms that prohibit certain behaviours in your society even if higher values accept them, as long as those same higher values don't strongly reject that prohibition ; but you cannot ever act in a way that higher values would object to.
Finally, any moral system that denies the multiple ambiguities and contradictions of human life cannot work and is potentially dangerous. (As such, watching a series like Battlestar Galactica or the Sopranos is a great test of how your moral compass holds up to reality.)
On the whole, our moral universe is quite similar. It's a testament to the complexity of moral thinking that we can reach entirely different conclusions based on largely compatible premises =) So many qualitative judgments to make...

This takes us away from homosexual marriage, but whatever, social politics is all about morals anyway, and those should be questioned and explored in depth if we are to come out stronger of those kinds of debate. Plus we've already moved on to abortion, it seems :D
On that... I will simply say that the notion of sanctity of human life isn't as absolute as it may seem. The same people that are pro-life are prone to thinking there are "just wars", for example. Clearly, there must be other qualitative criteria than "life always has to be respected, no matter the circumstances" that allow us to differentiate between situations.
Last edited by Ping' on Sat May 07, 2011 5:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Bad Player
Posts: 7228
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 10:53 pm
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: American
Location: Under a bridge

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Bad Player »

This thread is getting very... long xD Also is putting spaces before colons and semi-colons a French thing? I've seen Frenchy and Unas do it :P

Anywaaaaaaaaay
Unas wrote:
Hodou Okappa wrote:I do actually believe that organized religion can take part in moving society forward if it's willing to criticize itself and accept change.
The established structure of a religion can change - its values cannot. By nature, the values of a religion are inherited by an eternal God - changing them is meaningless.
Their understanding can change, too, if it's made clear that they were previously misunderstood. However, this is the result of theologists' thinking; change is certainly not a reaction to society. In that case you'd have a political party, not a religion.
Its values can't really change, but its beliefs change. I think the values of Christianity (and pretty much every religion) are good. But just as they (eventually) changed their belief to "The Earth revolves around the Sun," they can change their belief to "Homosexuality/same-sex marriage is fine," and make other similar changes that "move society forward."
Bad Player wrote:I think what Hodou means is that b/c of all the Christians, it's 'rigged' to go whichever way Christianity dictates, with people blindly following it without looking and the facts and making a decision themselves.
And again, what gives you the right to say that religious people are not making a decision themselves ?
Well, there are definitely religious people that do consider the religious argument and other arguments and deem the religious arguments more convincing, but there are definitely people who just blindly follow their religion. (Hello Jim Jones.) So if there are enough of these blind followers...
Also don't forget I was clarifying what I thought Hodou meant, not expounding my own view ;)
Bad Player wrote:About abortion... I'm personally pro-choice. I know the zygote/embryo/whatever has human genetic material (as does my hair and HeLa) but I also don't think it's fair to a woman who is not in a position to raise a child, physically/financially/emotionally/etc.
You have two possibilities here. Either the sexual act was wanted by the woman, or it wasn't.
If it was, then there is no question of fairness. It's her choice, and her responsibility.
If it wasn't, then that's called a rape, and it fortunately represents a clear minority of cases. In these ones, abortion might be tolerable - but that's hardly an argument. Defending a general law based on that principle is basically saying that rape is a current situation for all women...
You mention the self-defence right - it's a failsafe that only authorises murder in a specific situation : the law was already broken by someone else attempting to kill you. It doesn't give you the right to kill anyone at will.
I could tolerate a similar abortion right : a failsafe in case the law was already broken (by a rapist, here), but not an authorisation to commit murder in any circumstance.
Hmm... There's always that foundational aspect of whether abortion is murder or not. I know it has the genetic material, but I think there's something different about killing an embryo and killing a conscious, self-aware human who can feel pain and has family, friends, etc.
"It's her choice, and her responsibility." That's a pretty harsh judgment. What if she's not mentally capable of raising a child? What if she doesn't have the finances? Having a baby unarguably changes a woman's life, and not necessarily for the better. Why should her life be ruined for one bad choice? And it might not necessarily have been a bad choice at all; birth control isn't 100% effective.
Also, while this doesn't apply to abortion in general, there are health risks to teen pregnancy, to both the mother and the child. Are you going to force her to have the baby, even though it could be (or at least, is more likely to be) detrimental to her health (than other pregnancies)?*
The thing with abortion is, you can't win; either you infringe upon the rights of the unborn children, or of the women; so it's a question of who's rights you're going to infringe.

*: I know that there are some people who say "Abortion is okay if it was a rape or if the pregnancy poses a health risk to the mother or baby, but it's not okay in any other situation." About the health risk, I'm not sure if they mean a clear, present, direct health risk (like... iunno some sort of complication? I'm a guy! >.<) or a more general, indirect health risk (like teen pregnancy), and if they include the latter, then I guess my point is kinda pointless ^^' But I don't know, so maybe it does still work :P



@Frenchy: tc;du

EDIT: hmm
User avatar
Holhol
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:20 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: United States

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Holhol »

Bad Player wrote:This thread is getting very... long xD Also is putting spaces before colons and semi-colons a French thing? I've seen Frenchy and Unas do it :P

Anywaaaaaaaaay
Unas wrote:
Hodou Okappa wrote:I do actually believe that organized religion can take part in moving society forward if it's willing to criticize itself and accept change.
The established structure of a religion can change - its values cannot. By nature, the values of a religion are inherited by an eternal God - changing them is meaningless.
Their understanding can change, too, if it's made clear that they were previously misunderstood. However, this is the result of theologists' thinking; change is certainly not a reaction to society. In that case you'd have a political party, not a religion.
Its values can't really change, but its beliefs change. I think the values of Christianity (and pretty much every religion) are good. But just as they (eventually) changed their belief to "The Earth revolves around the Sun," they can change their belief to "Homosexuality/same-sex marriage is fine," and make other similar changes that "move society forward."
I remember someone telling me that "It (homosexuality) is the greatest rebellion against God."

This is one of the reasons why I'm atheist. I don't believe in what most of the stuff most religions stand for. It's ridiculous.
~Danielinhoni is the bestest friend anybody could ask for~

Image



▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬­▬▬▬

TKinhonipei is my soulmate ~<3

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Liquid Snake wrote:Snake, did you like my sunglasses?
Image
Broocevelt
Moderator
Posts: 7319
Joined: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:06 pm
Gender: Female
Spoken languages: ES/FR/EN/DE
Location: Spain
Contact:

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Broocevelt »

I'm atheist too, but because I'm very tolerant. :P
Having a religion would be against my principles, since they're not tolerant at all xD
Phantom

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Phantom »

Danielinhoni wrote:I'm atheist too, but because I'm very tolerant. :P
Having a religion would be against my principles, since they're not tolerant at all xD
Ouch Dan, that seems like a bad generalization there D= (Unless you refer to Catholics and the Vatican from pre-Renaissance era xP)

It's people themselves that can give religion a bad name (for example, al-Queda) and show intolerance, but not necessarily the teaching themselves (but I think that's what you were trying to get at...I hope xP)
User avatar
Ami
Moderator
Posts: 8429
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 12:42 pm
Gender: Female
Spoken languages: English
Location: Puppies!

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Ami »

Phantom wrote:
Danielinhoni wrote:I'm atheist too, but because I'm very tolerant. :P
Having a religion would be against my principles, since they're not tolerant at all xD
Ouch Dan, that seems like a bad generalization there D= (Unless you refer to Catholics and the Vatican from pre-Renaissance era xP)

It's people themselves that can give religion a bad name (for example, al-Queda) and show intolerance, but not necessarily the teaching themselves (but I think that's what you were trying to get at...I hope xP)
Individuals that are extremists are what give religion a bad name. Religion, true religion, seeks to help people, not oppress them. Unfortunately, the news stories and the impressions that most leave their mark are that of the extremists: it's hard to notice true, peaceful moderation.

Also, being an atheist doesn't automatically make you tolerant. I'm friends with atheists that are both tolerant of others, and atheists that are complete jerkwads.

Religion doesn't make people intolerant.
Not even being human makes you intolerant.
These are excuses, and not reasons for intolerance. Intolerance is a symptom of ignorance, which begets fear, which begets hatred.
since 2008!
Image
User avatar
Holhol
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2011 8:20 am
Gender: Male
Spoken languages: English
Location: United States

Re: Social Politics Thread

Post by Holhol »

I'm atheist for my own reasons.

I'm not going to go into details, but if there was a God, why does he leave the world to suffer?
~Danielinhoni is the bestest friend anybody could ask for~

Image



▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬­▬▬▬

TKinhonipei is my soulmate ~<3

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Liquid Snake wrote:Snake, did you like my sunglasses?
Image
Post Reply