[Sixty]

Morgoth, on 12 September 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:

Mutzy, on 12 September 2009 - 03:14 AM, said:

Well the entire adult population would be the army o.O Some would be off-duty and some on-duty and the units rotate. Pretty much like a larger scale Switzerland, its population is its army.

umh.. Switzerland has a professional army and compulsory military service for all men. Compulsory military service does not however make you an army. The army is the professional part, whereas the idea is that the rest can be called in in times of war. No difference in other words. The professional army holds the heavy weaponry, tanks and all the rest.

What would be the difference from how things are now?

Wouldn't that be like having a militia with mandatory membership?

[HoosierDaddy]

Adjutant Stormy, on 12 September 2009 - 10:23 AM, said:

Cougar, on 09 September 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:

I'll assume too HD that you have little truck with those who call the election of Bush 'a judicial coup d'etat', admittedly an exageration, but I feel an opinion that has some small basis.

The more I read, the more I respect John Roberts. Not so much Alito, but Robert's has had some excellent sound bites and policy choices.

That's depressing. Read the cases if you actually care. Supreme Court Justices aren't politicians and shouldn't have juicy "sound bites" or "policy choices." For fucks sake, the entire Right is aligned against judicial activism and the Supreme Court making "policy choices."

[Mutzy]

Sixty, on 12 September 2009 - 06:28 PM, said:

Morgoth, on 12 September 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:

Mutzy, on 12 September 2009 - 03:14 AM, said:

Well the entire adult population would be the army o.O Some would be off-duty and some on-duty and the units rotate. Pretty much like a larger scale Switzerland, its population is its army.

umh.. Switzerland has a professional army and compulsory military service for all men. Compulsory military service does not however make you an army. The army is the professional part, whereas the idea is that the rest can be called in in times of war. No difference in other words. The professional army holds the heavy weaponry, tanks and all the rest.

What would be the difference from how things are now?

Wouldn't that be like having a militia with mandatory membership?

Military service, means you learn how to be a soldier, so if you join an Armored division you would learn how ot drive a tank, Airforce- plane, Navy- ship, and so on. The equipment would be mantained by the Engineers and the quartermasters who are on duty. Basically since everyone is a part of the army, then we come back to the idea of citizen-soldiers, though becoming a professional soldier is optional, it is not necessary. The professional army will most likely be very small, because everyone else will be busy in the industries and jobs. Unfortunately I have not entirely figured out how going to war would work, but suffice to say it would most likely not be overly agressive or imperialistic more isolated.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

HoosierDaddy, on 12 September 2009 - 06:44 PM, said:

Adjutant Stormy, on 12 September 2009 - 10:23 AM, said:

Cougar, on 09 September 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:

I'll assume too HD that you have little truck with those who call the election of Bush 'a judicial coup d'etat', admittedly an exageration, but I feel an opinion that has some small basis.

The more I read, the more I respect John Roberts. Not so much Alito, but Robert's has had some excellent sound bites and policy choices.

That's depressing. Read the cases if you actually care. Supreme Court Justices aren't politicians and shouldn't have juicy "sound bites" or "policy choices." For fucks sake, the entire Right is aligned against judicial activism and the Supreme Court making "policy choices."

I haven't read any of Alito's cases, but my lawyer Supreme Court fanboy friend forwarded me (in his opinion) important Roberts cases during the nominaiton. I actually find myself agreeing with Roberts (in a superficial sense, granted that I'm not even remotely legally qualified) probably 4 times out of 5. He's a tad conservative for me, still.

I do view the legal system through the filter of my more knowledgeable friends.

[councilor]

i was watching clips on youtube and came across a rant (semi- rant. or is that a monologue?) by bill maher on his shown the real time.

he claims that the democrats have moved centre right and the republicans have moved into he nut house (his words, not mine.), creating the situation of what is now being percived as liberal is infact probably centre, and the genuinely liberal is considered extremist.

now I have never been to the us, so I can't say anything except that from i can see from the papers and television, it seems to feel sort of right.

is this right, or am i making an ass out of myself?

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Right and Libertarian leaning. I really don't pigeon hole very well.

Religion - No place in schools or politics. It can stay on the money, the Pledge of Allegiance, in whatever seals it's on and in/around public buildings.
Gay marriage - Hell, why not? Doesn't hurt anyone.
Polygamous marriage - See gay marriage.
Drugs - Legalize them.
Prostitution - Legalize it.
Abortion - Murder. Criminalize it AGAIN, kill murderers.
Murder - See abortion.
Rape and child molestation - Kill them.
Assault and child abuse - Don't kill them, but don't fall short of that.
Education - Great public education should absolutely be present through high school. Anything else, work for it. Everybody else did.
Health care - Not a right to recieve it, just for the OPPORTUNITY to recieve it. Divorce it from the workplace. Don't let the gov't. screw it up too.
Bailouts - Are you friggin' kidding me? If they need a bailout, they failed. Let them fail.
Global warming - Shut up. You're full of it.
Trade - If the country in question employs child labor, unfair wages, whatever they do to make for an unfair advantage, create tariffs that leevl the playing field until they lose the unfair advantage they have. We have the biggest consumer economy in the world, so let's just vote with our wallets.

Gotta stop now to put the baby to sleep, I'll edit later for any I can't think of right now.

Aptorian, on 25 July 2009 - 11:39 AM, said:

I would be more impressed if the political parties were disbanded and new "intrest groups" were instated in the government. A Lazy Student Party, And Old Grumpy Seniors Party, A Rich Assholes with Coke Habit Party, etc. I know, I know, it's a hopeless idea, but I really don't care for parties that tries to cover the whole spectrum and makes promises to everyone and then end up letting most people down. I want small parties, with a cause they believe in and want to work hard for. Not just carreer politicians who've become masters of compromise that worry more about their 3 month summer vacation and what kind of bottled mineral water they're serving at the meetings.

Didja ever play D&D? If you don't play your alignment right, the DM might change it for you? How about smaller parties like you envision, with VERY clearly articulated positions. If you vote outside of your positions, you get kicked out. I like it. Good train of thought. Right now, we have all those small interests, but they use money to advance their positions with whichever politician will take it.

gulex, on 25 July 2009 - 11:44 AM, said:

One may or many not agree with what people like Fidel Castro, Che and now Hugo Chavez is doing. But one thing is certain, they all view/viewed politics as a calling and not a line of work.

I don't think those guys view politics as a calling so much as a way to hold power, in their cases absolute power. They're sickening.

gulex, on 25 July 2009 - 11:27 AM, said:

Pro Cuba, USSR and all that. Anyway, let the voting begin!

Okay, I'm curious. What do you find, ah, attractive? about Cuba, the USSR, et. al? I know it killed the cat & all, but I just can't get my mind around what would make someone "pro cuba, USSR and all that".

Wickan warlock, on 25 July 2009 - 02:26 PM, said:

QUOTE From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs!

How about: From each according to their ability, to each according to the amount of work they put in. I like that much better. Obviously, people who honestly CANNOT should be supported, but for those who just don't want to, in the words of one former headless monarch, "let them eat cake!"

Mod Edit: compiled posts.~Bubba

[Wry]

Just a tip Goombah - Quintuple posting is considered bad form, try including all your points in one post, or addressing only one person at a time.

The discussion board is more formal in what's allowed and what's not.

And welcome to the debate

[Gothos]

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 26 September 2009 - 04:36 AM, said:

gulex, on 25 July 2009 - 11:27 AM, said:

Pro Cuba, USSR and all that. Anyway, let the voting begin!

Okay, I'm curious. What do you find, ah, attractive? about Cuba, the USSR, et. al? I know it killed the cat & all, but I just can't get my mind around what would make someone "pro cuba, USSR and all that".

in all honesty, it can only be a person who's never experienced a socialist economy of deficit. or a hypocrite that expects to seize power in a revolution.
anyway, it seems pretty curious to me that you consider abortions murders and would murder a whole lot of offenders, among other things for murder - the precise thing the state will be doing in that instance... law doesn't make murder any less criminal (self defense is a different matter of course, we can't all be true christians and really believe in a better afterlife, now can we?)

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Gothos, on 26 September 2009 - 03:40 PM, said:

anyway, it seems pretty curious to me that you consider abortions murders and would murder a whole lot of offenders, among other things for murder - the precise thing the state will be doing in that instance... law doesn't make murder any less criminal (self defense is a different matter of course, we can't all be true christians and really believe in a better afterlife, now can we?)

I absolutely do consider abortion murder - of an innocent. In my book, that's completely different from killing a murderer or rapist - they're not innocent. I'm not a christian, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in an afterlife. I believe in people. In each person's potential to do for theirself, and the potential for good we can each do for each other.
I also believe in HARSH, SWIFT punishment - it's a great deterrent, for one thing. For another, when a person commits a crime on the magnitude of murder or rape, in my book they've forfeited their right to life. I'm a barbarian, paugh...

[Morgoth]

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 26 September 2009 - 05:40 PM, said:

Gothos, on 26 September 2009 - 03:40 PM, said:

anyway, it seems pretty curious to me that you consider abortions murders and would murder a whole lot of offenders, among other things for murder - the precise thing the state will be doing in that instance... law doesn't make murder any less criminal (self defense is a different matter of course, we can't all be true christians and really believe in a better afterlife, now can we?)

I absolutely do consider abortion murder - of an innocent. In my book, that's completely different from killing a murderer or rapist - they're not innocent. I'm not a christian, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in an afterlife. I believe in people. In each person's potential to do for theirself, and the potential for good we can each do for each other.
I also believe in HARSH, SWIFT punishment - it's a great deterrent, for one thing. For another, when a person commits a crime on the magnitude of murder or rape, in my book they've forfeited their right to life. I'm a barbarian, paugh...

The claim that harsh punishment is a good deterrent seems to be brought up again and again, yet all statistics seems to indicate there's no truth to that claim. Indeed, considering crime rates one could more easily infer that harsh punishment has the opposite effect.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

If the state executes only one innocent person (which has probably happened, and if it hasn't it will), that makes ALL of us murderers. The fatal flaw in the idea of capital punishment.

[Gothos]

The dissolving of personal responsibility that the modern jurisdiction provides has a byproduct of people dismissing wrong decisions as "nobody's" decisions.
if you punish someone for purposedly ending a life by ending his, who's going to punish you for that? I don't give a damn about whom you kill, it's the act that's the issue.
also, harsh punishment isn't as good a deterrent as you may think. it's more likely to just make crimes more severe in an attempt to eliminate any witnesses, in a "all or nothing" philosophy.

[Thelomen Toblerone]

I won't get into it here because it's not an abortion thread, but I just cannot fathom anyone thinking aborting a child should result in a death sentence. The legal limit for abortions means the foetus is in no way developed enough to be considered a human for the purposes of a murder. Firstly there's the whole it can only survive parasitically thing, secondly if you're not opposed to the killing of animals then there's no way you should be opposed to the aborting of what is essentially at that stage a lump of cells that cannot do anything.

On the issue of the death penalty, we've (pretty much) all had the debate in other thread where i've put my views, I'd trawl through but I'm a lazy, lazy bastard. But essentially yes, I cannot see any benefit to the death penalty. It's cheaper and more productive to incarcerate someone for life and make them do things like stitch mailbags, the death penalty doesn't reduce crime (or at least statistics strongly indicate that), and you've got the whole killing innocent people thing, on top of the liberal questions about the right of the state to take an individual's life.

[Grand Goombah Graeld]

Morgoth - I'd like to see those stats.

Gothos - I look at it like this - everyone has a right to life. We grant that to each other (thanks for that, BTW). When you commit murder, you give up your right to life. The state isn't killing you, you've killed yourself. My opinion, meh.

Thelomen - I firmly believe that a "fetus" IS a human being. Just because it's not "fully developed" is no reason to consider it otherwise. You're not fully developed - you won't be till you're dead. Sorry, I don't put animals in general on par with humans. I really AM a savage!

[Thelomen Toblerone]

For the sake of curiousity then, can I just ask when your cut-off point is? Is it from the split second the sperm fertilises the egg?

In any case, I'd put forward the parasitic argument - say you woke up in a hospital, you'd been kidnapped and taken there. Whilst you were out of it, the doctors had hooked a dying stranger up to you, in a situation similar to a life support machine. While the individual is attached to you, they will live. As soon as you disconnect, they die. Further, as long as the connection is in place, your life becomes severely hampered. You are constantly in discomfort, you can't drink or smoke or do strenuous excercise, you may well find your body becoming disfigured in ways you find personally distressing. And then, if the procedure works (which it may well not, the other may die anyway), there will be an unbelievable amount of pain, following which point you will not only bear the scars for the rest of your life, but will have to look after this person and nurse them through the rest of their life, caring for them and looking after them. You also do not know this person, it's quite possible they will grow upt o become the next Pol Pot. And every single time you look or think of them, you will relive the emotional trauma of your kidnap.

Would you not feel just ever so slightly irritated if someone told you you had no choice but to deal with this situation? I accept this may seem a fairly harsh example, but it really is equivalent to a woman being raped and then being told she can't abort because it's murder. And you cannot state that in the case of rape, abortion is not murder but in all others it is - either it's murder or it's not. To me, if I was a woman and had that situation, I would be outraged if someone had the nerve to tell me "sorry, not your choice, the lump of cells in you which at the moment has zero intelligence, responds to no stimuli, exists solely parasitically and will serve as a constant reminder of the trauma you went through could potentially be a person."

[Shinrei]

Thelomen Toblerone, on 26 September 2009 - 11:30 PM, said:

Firstly there's the whole it can only survive parasitically thing, secondly if you're not opposed to the killing of animals then there's no way you should be opposed to the aborting of what is essentially at that stage a lump of cells that cannot do anything.

Now, I'm actually pro-choice, but correct me if I'm mistaken: If we put a baby outside in the forest, it will survive? Because in my experience, human babies can't do jack-diddly without a care-giver. I think you need to rethink/state your argument..

[Thelomen Toblerone]

There's a difference in this case between the unborn child, which must live exclusively within the particulr mother. In theory a baby once born can be raised by any wet-nurse or someone with formula. A care giver is different to the mother, without whom the baby cannot survive. Were pregnancy a thing you could pass from person to person, your point would be a good one, but it's not. It's the specific impregnated individual who must carry to term, thus denying them the choice.

Hopefully that makes sense, what I'm trying to say is, the fact the baby is defenceless outside the womb is irrelevant to the argument because it can in theory be raised by anyone - the mother has the choice not to raise it. In terms of pregnancy - where the abortion part becomes relevant - the mother has NO choice but to let the baby leech off of HER - she cannot "give it away" and it still live, this there is no choice. It's a case of let it live off you, or get rid of it.

This post has been edited by Thelomen Toblerone: 27 September 2009 - 01:51 PM

[Aptorian]

I'm agreeing with TT on the abortion issue.

I can understand christians and similar people of various faiths having a problem with abortions, but if you're an atheist and you're just looking at the thing from a purely scientific biological stand point, in the early weeks the baby is as much a lizard, octopus or orangutang as it is a human. It's just a lump of cells trying to build a human out of the blue prints the mother and father supplied.

People always seem to put such an extreme value on human life, as though every little child is a miracle. It really isn't. A human being is no more special than the live stock we breed and slaughter for food or the wild animals that live in the forests. It just so happens we are exceptionally intelligent and have used our minds and opposable thumbs to conquer the world. The value we put on human lives are based on the hypocrisy of emotions and some legal philosophy we get indoctrinated with during our upbringing. You don't mourn the chicken every time you eat an egg do you? Or say a little prayer after you're finished masturbating? How about when you wash your bedclothes and hundreds of thousands of little creatures die in a big soapy cataclysm. A twelve weeks old fetus is not a magical snowflake.

How much do you think a childs life is worth in Africa? Jack shit. In the older generations of our society people didn't put as much emotional stock in their children before they were six, eight or ten years old, because they knew that one in three of their children or even more would probably die at an early age. Life is cheap. Death is easy. Don't mourn a lump of meat that doesn't even have higher brain functions. Are you also against letting brain dead people die?

Personally I think it should be possible to abort children all the way up to the age of 18.

(I hate children, by the time I reach 40 I am sure I will have begun hating young people as well)

[Morgoth]

@TT - been reading Singer have we?

[HoosierDaddy]

Cougar, on 09 September 2009 - 10:21 AM, said:

@HD, I think there is something fundamentally inimical to most British people about putting so much power in the hands of an un-elected, not to mention effectively unremovable body. We have a huge ruckus about the EU FFS!

I did my senior thesis in half point on the UK and the EU. I understand somewhat the point you are making, and your country's discussion on continentalization vs. independence is much of the same thing that the U.S. goes through on just about every damned global perspective. The last time I studied it, you still had the pound (this is still true), had the payback (sorry can't remember the exact terminology, it's been 5 years), and were still arguing over GMO's. In addition the RRF was still in debate (I wrote my thesis on the nature of Britain weighing it's "special relationship" with a more single entity Europe not needing NATO (America)).

Quote

Whilst the fact that judges are tough to budge can be seen as elevating them above politics (and there are plenty of people who would cite examples where the judges have been elected as party x and subsequently confounded said party with their liberalism/conservatism etc) it also means that bad ones are equally hard to move.

Oh, I totally agree. At the state level here judges are elected at the local level.

Quote

My argument against such a thing would be that just because the institution itself is (relatively) successful doesn't mean it's institutionally sound. In fact I'd go further: I'd say that the SC can be cited as an example of something that works almost solely on the qualities of individuals, which, of course are inarguably unpredictable and capricious.
A highly politicised court (1930s vs FDR) can be as destructive as a progressive court (say stages of the 1960s) can be beneficial.

And, as a progressive American I'd argue that it was solely because it was a highly partisan SC (and FDR promised to enlarge the SC to get a majority to do his bidding which turned it that way) that brought about our most progressive institutions: Social Security, Welfare, and alphabet soup .

Quote

I'll assume too HD that you have little truck with those who call the election of Bush 'a judicial coup d'etat', admittedly an exageration, but I feel an opinion that has some small basis.

Bush v. Gore is a sad note in a relatively good history. It was.... not good. I'd rather the Supreme Court stayed out of that, but a country without an executive is a country that is relatively paralyzed, so I can understand the policy arguments that had to hurricane through the Supreme Court at that point.

Quote

So we are off topic, never mind, it's been off topic for a while.

You are a naughty Mod!

Grand Goombah Graeld, on 26 September 2009 - 01:47 AM, said:

Right and Libertarian leaning. I really don't pigeon hole very well.

Religion - No place in schools or politics. It can stay on the money, the Pledge of Allegiance, in whatever seals it's on and in/around public buildings.
Gay marriage - Hell, why not? Doesn't hurt anyone.
Polygamous marriage - See gay marriage.
Drugs - Legalize them.
Prostitution - Legalize it.
Abortion - Murder. Criminalize it AGAIN, kill murderers.
Murder - See abortion.
Rape and child molestation - Kill them.
Assault and child abuse - Don't kill them, but don't fall short of that.
Education - Great public education should absolutely be present through high school. Anything else, work for it. Everybody else did.
Health care - Not a right to recieve it, just for the OPPORTUNITY to recieve it. Divorce it from the workplace. Don't let the gov't. screw it up too.
Bailouts - Are you friggin' kidding me? If they need a bailout, they failed. Let them fail.
Global warming - Shut up. You're full of it.
Trade - If the country in question employs child labor, unfair wages, whatever they do to make for an unfair advantage, create tariffs that leevl the playing field until they lose the unfair advantage they have. We have the biggest consumer economy in the world, so let's just vote with our wallets.

Gotta stop now to put the baby to sleep, I'll edit later for any I can't think of right now.

Well, I'd say you are definitely on the right, spectrum speaking, and I don't agree with your more bloodthirsty policies, but I do appreciate your take on marriage. It doesn't hurt anybody else. I know you've described yourself as an atheist, so that makes some sense, thus I figure you for interest based beliefs. I do wonder where you get some of your more... controversial values from, though?