Author Topic: speaking of stating the obvious.  (Read 30296 times)

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #225 on: April 13, 2005, 06:29:10 PM »
Well said, Eral. ;)
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #226 on: April 13, 2005, 06:49:38 PM »
@Eral - Excellent and valid point.

 However, let me give a less negative interpretation. Smoking is an example that comes to mind. On the one hand, governments make a lot of money from smoking, through taxes, employment, etc and yet on the other hand it causes expense to the government due to increased health costs, sick days, loss of productivity, etc. In theory, when it becomes more costly than profitable for government, the government will try and change their citizens' behavior.

 Another example would be sex education and trying to cut down on teenage pregnancy. Does the government want to cut down on out of wedlock children because they care so much for the individual? Probably not. They wish to cut down on the amount of illegitimate children because it costs the state.

 I will give a possibly inaccurate statistic for the US. If a citizen graduates from high school, marries before having children and has children after the age of twenty-one years old, they will have an 8% (In that region) chance of being poor. The state will earn no money but instead to some extent support these citizens. So what happens?  The state sponsors the point of view thru educational and other programs or propaganda, agenda, etc. Eureka! Teenage pregnancies decrease.

 Most of us would agree with both of those agendas and the results.

 

 

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #227 on: April 13, 2005, 07:21:10 PM »
What does the state sponsor exactly ?

1) Education about sex and pregnancy (or sexually transmitted diseases)
or
2) Ribbons for people who join a virginity club
or
I did not get your example: 8% compared to what? How about unmarried and kids after being 25? How about married and kids with 18?

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Eral

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #228 on: April 13, 2005, 08:20:41 PM »
These are good examples of government for the people - healthy people who are not poor are happy people. I have to admit I expect this stuff from my government- "schoolbooks, beds in hospitals, and peace in our bloody times". I don't consider this to be creating or producing the kind of citizen desired by a government, but providing services required by the people.

The argument arises when you have a conflict how to deliver those services: do you use efficiency as your measure or morality?

I am really happy when my government asks "how will this benefit the people?" and "who will be disadvantaged by this law?" rather than "who am I making happy?" and "will I get a lot of votes if I do this?": they just don't seem to very much. And they're becoming SO unsubtle in their vote-buying, it's clear they think we are REALLY dumb.

*sigh* maybe we are.

I really want that virtual pinot now.
If you see anything mysterious or unusual, just enjoy it while you can.  - Michael Leunig.

Offline Veloxyll

  • Seeker of Shiny Things
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #229 on: April 14, 2005, 07:15:49 AM »
well remember the voting public voted howard back in because he claimed that intrest rates would rise under a labor government.

>:( >:( >:(

I hate people. If I ever get a 66%+ majority government in the upper and lower houses I'm abolishing elections.
Shiny things, shiny things, shiny shiny shiny things!

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #230 on: April 14, 2005, 08:15:45 AM »
The government I've seen in action over the last 6 years hasn't displayed any morality, let alone be 'trusted' to dictate it.  I'd still like to hear exactly what Ice meant.  It just seemed so out of place there, all by itself.

With respect to the poor, the federal government isn't doing a damned thing except cutting social programs, so we can have our "tax relief", leaving that 8% to fend for itself.

Sex Ed.  (chuckles)  You may have dated yourself.  Many of them have come under fire from and caved to someone ele's sense of morality and "decency".  I'm quite curious about the percentage of schools that still teach it, actually, but that'd mean research.  :-*

(here's one and only one, 'cause I'm lazy- http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/newsrelease3205.html)

The goverment I'd like to see has a duty to international issues, the economy, and the military.  And that's just for starters.  But government has no business interferring in the legal system, no election has any business in a courtroom.  Goverment has no business in my private life - there are many things I find offensive that are still legal. 

Goverment has no business using religion has no business using goverment.  This and taxation was the basis for the separation from England, was it not?  Taxation certainly was, and perhaps religion was used for the purposes of propoganda, but I guess the stipulation that the religion need be judeo-christian wasn't clear enough, hmm?  ::)  We need a history buff about now.

The text of the Declaration: http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/decindep.htm

(And if anyone's curious, I actually scored Centrist, albeit barely, in the test.)

And here's some interesting reading: http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=3961
« Last Edit: April 14, 2005, 08:40:56 AM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Hendryk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #231 on: April 14, 2005, 08:41:29 AM »
A great many colonials had in fact emigrated to America to be free of the Church of England.  The C of E was a huge landowner, only congregants could sit in parliament and it had the power to tax parishoners (the tithe).  Bishops sat in the House of Lords and were counted on to provide a veto over the Commons if the Commons got too frisky.  There was also some shadowy power of the Church in the legal domain (in enforcing the canon law) but frankly I've never learned what that amounted to.  The Founding Fathers of the USA were also heavily influenced by the Encyclopedists of France; anti-clerical rationalists who had even greater issues about the interconnections between the French monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church than the colonists did with the C of E.  There was also the fact that there were so many sects established in the colonies that, even before independence, toleration had become the de facto policy as the only practical alternative to civil war.

As for where the Bushies got their ideas about using the federal government to impose their moral standards on all of society, they got them from the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #232 on: April 14, 2005, 09:55:18 AM »
The Founding Fathers of the USA were also heavily influenced by the Encyclopedists of France; anti-clerical rationalists who had even greater issues about the interconnections between the French monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church than the colonists did with the C of E.  There was also the fact that there were so many sects established in the colonies that, even before independence, toleration had become the de facto policy as the only practical alternative to civil war.
The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)

Quote
As for where the Bushies got their ideas about using the federal government to impose their moral standards on all of society, they got them from the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.
Maybe, but the Civil Right movement got their ideas from the Constitution.  "All men are created equal" and all that wash.  This one gets it's ideas from the bible and god 'himself'.  Nor was the Civil Rights movement 'embedded' and they used the legal system - in large part, because they had little political power.  What power rose was asassinated.  There is/was a huge difference in the power base.  Plus, that idea really makes me cringe.  But it cannot be denied that the Conservatives have been doing their homework.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Hendryk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #233 on: April 14, 2005, 12:23:42 PM »
The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)
If you mean militarily, then no, the ending would have been very different without loans, Lafayette and the French fleet.  The question being considered though was specifically the French connection to the Constitution's separation of church and state.

Quote
Maybe, but the Civil Right movement got their ideas from the Constitution.  "All men are created equal" and all that wash.  This one gets it's ideas from the bible and god 'himself'.
  The Declaration of Independence actually which in the very next phrase does invoke the Creator obliquely on behalf of the rebels.  Even without that, though, the statement "All men are created equal" and the statement "It says in the Bible that ...(whatever point is at issue)" are equally metaphysical by being insusceptible of pragmatic verification.  Half of all "men" are actually women, for instance.  And if you don't like the Civil Rights movement in this context, consider Prohibition.  My only reason for not choosing it is that nowadays, even most Bushies would concede that that Great Experiment in Moral Betterment didn't work out so good.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2005, 12:25:44 PM by Hendryk »

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #234 on: April 14, 2005, 01:36:38 PM »
What does the state sponsor exactly ?

1) Education about sex and pregnancy (or sexually transmitted diseases)
or
2) Ribbons for people who join a virginity club
or
I did not get your example: 8% compared to what? How about unmarried and kids after being 25? How about married and kids with 18?



@1) & 2) both. I might add  that there is some point to the "just say no" stance. I think we could also agree on the most part that we would rather see the virginal twelve year old, than the sexually experienced 12 yr old.

@3) In theory, 92% chance. Unmarried and over 25 has higher success rates or lower poverty rates.

 In the last sentence I am unsure of what you mean but I think you mean a substantial number of children.

 The large family in the US has declined.  There are minority groups that consistently have larger amount of children, two examples would be  the Mormons and and Muslims. 'glain could answer the question re: Mormons more accurately than I can but I believe with the Mormons, as with the other many other minority groups, they are generally quite successful in both society and family. Of course there are exceptions and there are minority groups that do struggle with poverty more than other groups but if you applied the same formula, hs ed, over 21 and married it might substantially alter their likelihood of being poor.

The government I've seen in action over the last 6 years hasn't displayed any morality, let alone be 'trusted' to dictate it.  I'd still like to hear exactly what Ice meant.  It just seemed so out of place there, all by itself.

With respect to the poor, the federal government isn't doing a damned thing except cutting social programs, so we can have our "tax relief", leaving that 8% to fend for itself.

Sex Ed.  (chuckles)  You may have dated yourself.  Many of them have come under fire from and caved to someone ele's sense of morality and "decency".  I'm quite curious about the percentage of schools that still teach it, actually, but that'd mean research.  :-*

(here's one and only one, 'cause I'm lazy- http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/newsrelease3205.html)


 Fortunately in the US there are other types of governments, and private(?) organizations (I am thinking of planned parenthood and their ilk) , as well as religious charities (sorry Cyber) and not least of all the family (traditional and others) that do good. In NH, I have learned alot about assistance available for poor mothers thru my prenatals visits at my hospital. How many of these programs are federally subsidized is a question I cannot answer, they appear to be mainly state or privately sponsored.

 These are programs that I am lucky enough not to need but I will give you examples. Food assistance, health assistance, gear assistance (cribs, clothing, et al.), mental health services, contraceptive services, pregnancy classes that includes care of newborns, followup care visits to your home, very comprehensive programs and all free. You are treated with respect and questions are answered fully. In the office they explain contraceptive choices, remind you to get a pediatrician, etc. Sadly in all offices and the bathrooms there are posters offering assistance to women that are in abusive relationships. :'(  In the pregnancy classes, 60% of the participtants are over 25 and married and the rest are under 25, unmarried with absent boyfriends but with supportive mothers. In class the other day we were asked to make of wish list of what we wanted in the birth, and one young girl wanted a loving father for her child. :(

(where's that virtual pinot when you need it?)

 On a lighter note, I must admit that I have never attended a sex ed class, my one opportunity to attend was wrecked by my ditching ummm, missing the course, so I have no actual idea of what went on. :-[

 However I do try to interact w/the younger generation (21 yrs), and one was from Idaho, and other in NH and both attended sex ed. The girl from Idaho also had the benefit of interested parents who not only explained contraception, the need for condoms but also took her to get contraception. Fond of her as I am, her knowledge of contraception, her behaviors sexually, and her lack of safe sex practices, gave me a headache. Examples: "My boyfriend ("the love of my life" of two months) doesn't believe in using condoms." "I could be pregnant, I left my birth control pills in Oregon and haven't been able to get any more."  :'( :'( :P :P :P

 The boy on the other hand seemed to have a sound head on his shoulders and told me of his sex ed which sounded comprehensive, and also that his teacher drew a graph representing the length of childhood versus adulthood and did offer the opinion that perhaps they should put off sexual experimentation until they were older which he thought was sound advice.

 

 


Offline Evaine Dian

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #235 on: April 14, 2005, 02:07:02 PM »
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).
"Show me how you do that trick! The one that makes me scream", she said,
"the one that makes me laugh!" she said and threw her arms around my neck.
"Show me how you do it and I promise you, I promise that
I'll run away with you, I'll run away with you..."

Offline Eral

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #236 on: April 14, 2005, 07:00:19 PM »
"All men are created equal" and all that wash.    Half of all "men" are actually women, for instance.
Umm, no. Because women were not allowed to vote, let alone be elected, they couldn't have jobs, they couldn't own property, and had no rights over their children if they seperated from their husbands. Not quite the same position as the man.

As for where the Bushies got their ideas about using the federal government to impose their moral standards on all of society, they got them from the Civil Rights movement of the 50's and 60's.
I'm sorry, wasn't the Civil Rights movement trying to make life better for an enormous section of the population who had been horribly treated for hundreds of years? If the information I have read is correct, it was quite difficult for them to achieve changes, they faced violence and murder - only this time everyone got to see it. I don't think it was really a question of imposing a moral code: it was more about saying "how about we have jobs, education and houses too? Oh and could you stop killing and raping us please?" 
If you see anything mysterious or unusual, just enjoy it while you can.  - Michael Leunig.

Offline Hendryk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #237 on: April 14, 2005, 07:56:31 PM »
Umm, no. Because women were not allowed to vote, let alone be elected, they couldn't have jobs, they couldn't own property, and had no rights over their children if they seperated from their husbands. Not quite the same position as the man.
Which was the point I was making.  You either exclude half the species from the Declaration's intent or confess that it was nothing more than cheap propaganda.


Quote
I'm sorry, wasn't the Civil Rights movement trying to make life better for an enormous section of the population who had been horribly treated for hundreds of years? If the information I have read is correct, it was quite difficult for them to achieve changes, they faced violence and murder - only this time everyone got to see it. I don't think it was really a question of imposing a moral code: it was more about saying "how about we have jobs, education and houses too? Oh and could you stop killing and raping us please?" 
Uh...you are rather mixing private with governmental initiatives in your examples.  Not the same agencies even if the people involved were identical.  I am restricting myself to considering giving the force of Law to private moral imperatives so the Jim Crow laws would be pertinent.  The Ku Klux Klan would not.  And from a purely legal standpoint, the Constitution does give the states the right of determining citizenship, eligibility for the vote and, indeed, "all powers" not specifically given to the Federal government.  That is why constitutional amendments were required to end slavery in the 19th century and to empower the various civil rights acts of the 20th.  The Federal government would otherwise have had no legal say in regards to how the individual states treated their various classes of residents.  As a result of these amendments, however, and the specific legislation which has followed, the Federal government acquired the right to preside over the legal circumstances of individuals within states.

For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.  Thus, having the votes to do so, they are using the powers of command, which the Federal government obtained during the Civil Rights years, to enforce their own moral vision.  The extension of the power of the Federal government to intervene in the private, personal lives and choices of citizens was precisely what was won during the Civil Rights years.  Now, that power is being put by other people to ends for which they claim a moral validity of equal force to that of blacks for redress of the wrongs they suffered.  You may approve the latter and disdain the former moral claims but the legal mechanism remains the same in both cases.  So, as a practical matter, if you don't like the current agenda, all you can do is attempt to rally enough votes to overturn it.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #238 on: April 14, 2005, 09:20:27 PM »
Regullus:  I have nothing against religous-based charities and that was certainly nothing I meant to imply or convey.  Many of them do good works.  The hypocracy that exists, however, is the killer every time and they are certainly embraced by George and his ilk.  But I'm left wondering how responsible is it to merely teach abstinance?  A healthy teen is a sexually curious teen.  It seems that the logic goes: If you're too stupid to listen, tough shit -  suck it up.
Planned Parenthood is an example of a well-rounded organization.  As far as I know it still receives federal grants monies.  It is, however, villified by the current administration.

The extension of the power of the Federal government to intervene in the private, personal lives and choices of citizens was precisely what was won during the Civil Rights years.
Uh.  What?  How?  By enforcing equality?  You've lost me.   :-\

The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)
If you mean militarily, then no, the ending would have been very different without loans, Lafayette and the French fleet.  The question being considered though was specifically the French connection to the Constitution's separation of church and state.
I did not mean militarily, per se - rather, the implied assistance.  France likely had a vested interest in the outcome.  As far as possible influence over what was written into the Constitution, it seems an unlikely lesson in todays public (USa) schools.

Quote
For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.
And if they believed in a more benevolent god, I certainly wouldn't be half as worried as I am currently.

Let us not forget that they ("bushies", heh) are also convinced that they are promoting the betterment of society.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #239 on: April 14, 2005, 09:22:32 PM »
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).
You obviously don't live in the US.  ;)
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Hendryk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #240 on: April 14, 2005, 09:39:22 PM »
The extension of the power of the Federal government to intervene in the private, personal lives and choices of citizens was precisely what was won during the Civil Rights years.
Uh.  What?  How?  By enforcing equality?  You've lost me.   :-\
  Right.  Under the original draft of the Constitution, the federal government had no legal right to enforce equality among residents.  All such matters were up to the several sovereign states.  That's why some states had property qualifications for voters, others none.  Some states had literacy tests.  Eventually, some states allowed women to vote long before others did.
Quote
The skimming I did would suggest that without France there may not have been an end to the Revolution - at least not the end that was achieved.  (And it's been ages since I took history)
If you mean militarily, then no, the ending would have been very different without loans, Lafayette and the French fleet.  The question being considered though was specifically the French connection to the Constitution's separation of church and state.
I did not mean militarily, per se - rather, the implied assistance.  France likely had a vested interest in the outcome.  As far as possible influence over what was written into the Constitution, it seems an unlikely lesson in todays public (USa) schools.
  Sure.  The French were looking to reverse the results of the previous war (ended in 1763) and recover French Canada and various locations in the Caribbean and in India.  Right after Cornwallis surrendered though, Admiral Rodney sunk enough of the French fleet to prevent anything but American independence resulting from the war.  And the costs of the conflict bankrupted Louis XVI, and so caused the French Revolution, beginning six years after ours officially ended.  And no one ever taught Voltaire or Diderot in US public schools even when we officially liked them.  But the learned men who led the Revolution were familiar with them as a matter of course and their thinking did, most certainly, help form the basic attitudes which shaped the US Constitution - whether it is taught that way today or not.

Quote
Quote
For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.
Quote
And if they believed in a more benevolent god, I certainly wouldn't be half as worried as I am currently.

Let us not forget that they ("bushies", heh) are also convinced that they are promoting the betterment of society.
  That merely means that your moral vision disagrees with theirs.  The ballot box, exile or armed rebellion are the only options I'm aware of for you, if the disagreement becomes acute.  Or prison, I suppose.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2005, 09:44:05 PM by Hendryk »

Offline Eral

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 1281
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #241 on: April 14, 2005, 11:13:58 PM »
Hendryk: You came out as Marxist on the political quiz, didn't you.  :) Can you say the Declaration of Independence was cheap propaganda and not get hatemail or shot? (I'm buying you a drink at the virtual pinot thread. I think perhaps a bottle.)

Because of the Civil Rights movement, the Federal government changed laws to enable itself to fix "bad" state laws.
Because the current government now uses those laws to implement a particular agenda, rather than ensure the rights of citizens, I still don't think we can say the Civil Rights movement is responsible for that. I do hold a distinction b/w the "private" group and those in the government who responded. (It's clearly JFK's fault. )
I'd also argue the toss with you that spiritual oppression in a country where people are nearly free to hold whatever beliefs they like, is worse than physical oppression like being murdered or raped because of the colour of your skin.

The people who changed the Jim Crow laws, etc were addressing a centuries old wrong. It wasn't a grey area, open to hundreds of personal beliefs, like morality.
The moral campaigners may use the Civil Rights movement as a justification, but it's dodgy at best.
Like Cybersquirt, I am uncomfortable when governments say their objective is the "betterment of society", and then the targets of their legislation seem to be the poor, the sick and the unemployed. I don't know that we can say Cyber is just opposed to "Bushies" -maybe she would like some  proof that they are improving society. And not just saying stuff that sounds good and wrapping themselves in the flag.

Thank you for allaying my fears about the all men being equal. For a minute there I feared the worst. 
If you see anything mysterious or unusual, just enjoy it while you can.  - Michael Leunig.

Offline Veloxyll

  • Seeker of Shiny Things
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 781
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #242 on: April 14, 2005, 11:33:12 PM »
I'm all for the betterment of society, but I don't think a $10 billion budget turnaround (towards DEBT) is the way to do it.
Or religion being the way.

And definately not bettering society by attacking the lower ranks. Since THEY'RE PART OF SOCIETY TOO.

As for the abstinence only programs. They suck arse. That's even assuming they've actually got scientific facts in them now. (Statistically, Abstinence only programs give the same results as no sex ed at all :) )
Shiny things, shiny things, shiny shiny shiny things!

Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #243 on: April 15, 2005, 03:58:38 AM »
I for one am all for abstinence, since my part of the religious tribe does only believe in Jesus and the new books instead of the gory old stuff. 'Thou shalt not kill' would be my preferred area of abstinence for example.

@About teenagers and sex and keeping them away from it. Just not possible IMHO, but you can educate them to a point where they get enough information and support to decide for themselves. Kids have a fine sense for bigotry. In a world full of fraud, lies and deception they are not bettered by politicians who occacionally spew forth some catchy phrases and then turn around and revel with their cronies in their deeds and how they got away. The same goes for a consumerist society based on youth and sex which tells its most capable members to abstain from sex yet to be sexually pleasing is at the core of every product from bubblegum to car tires. A driver's license does not make you a responsible driver, but a person who doesn't have a  license is a ticking bomb.

I like what Hendryk said about the French involvement and how it turned back on the king back home, but the one idea I like best about Voltaire is that he belived in education.

Not by people who claim in public that AIDS can be transmitted via sweat and tears, please. America harbours some of the brightest people in the world in every field that science can think of, yet very often I get the idea that there is not much of that light shining through the rest of society. There is no trickle down effect obviously!
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #244 on: April 15, 2005, 07:04:56 AM »
Using the word propoganda is hardly an insult.  The word is usually used in a negative statement, but look it up.  That's what the Constitution was - "Material distributed to win people over to a particular doctrine" or "The systematic widespread promotion of a particular doctrine or idea".  I suppose you could call it a doctrine, but the way I see it, you live your beliefs and write or espouse propoganda.

The best part, is the beginning "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."  ;)

But then it goes on to say "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  Men.  You, yourself, Eral, pointed out that women had no power - political or otherwise - I'd add 'unless wealthy'.  Neither Blacks nor Native Americans (named Indian Savages) nor Immigrants are the white man's equal in that time frame.  Tho's Jefferson, for example, had many slaves.

"That, to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed."  Even then, who had political say.  Dare I suggest the (wealthy) land-owners?  And where, exactly, do they get our consent from these days?

Here's another really good one "That, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."  Yeah, baby.   :pirate

It then goes on to list the many forms of oppression the King of England has wrought on the Colonies.  Among them:
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the People.
  • He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
  • He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.
  • He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
  • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: [among many other things is]
    For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
  • He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
  • He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.


Anything sound familiar in there?  >:(

At the time of it's draft, I'm sure they meant well, and indeed believed strongly in what they wrote - their way of life was being seriously threatened, after all.  But it was still a document by the wealthy, literate, god-fearing men, for the wealthy, literate god-fearing men.  And it was propoganda.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Cybersquirt

  • Socialist Evil-Doer
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 816
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #245 on: April 15, 2005, 07:27:17 AM »
For themselves, the Bushies claim, not without examples, that they are being legally constrained from obeying God.  A more grievous oppression, certainly, than mere civil abuse for the soul is incomparably more important than the body.
Quote from: Cybersquirt
And if they believed in a more benevolent god, I certainly wouldn't be half as worried as I am currently.

Let us not forget that they ("bushies", heh) are also convinced that they are promoting the betterment of society.
Quote from: Hendryk
That merely means that your moral vision disagrees with theirs.  The ballot box, exile or armed rebellion are the only options I'm aware of for you, if the disagreement becomes acute.  Or prison, I suppose.
This is about as rebellious as I get, aside from protests.  But given that activists have been likened to terrorists by this admin and certain local authorities, prison is likely.  Since that fateful (gag) day in November, I've lost faith in the ballot box, so I guess that leaves exile.  Exile has a certain charm, don'cha think?  ::)
« Last Edit: April 15, 2005, 07:28:48 AM by Cybersquirt »
Stupid is as stupid does.

Offline Hendryk

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 138
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #246 on: April 15, 2005, 08:18:08 AM »
Just keep in mind that among the "Sacred, inalienable Rights" the colonists were defending was the right to trade - in naval stores, food and saltpeter for making gunpowder - with the common French enemy during the Seven Years' War.  George III was an immortal blunderer but his blunders were certainly in a direction which he had every legal - and a considerable moral - right to take.

And to show what goes around comes around, the New England states met at the Hartford Convention in 1814 to consider seceding from the US during the War of 1812.  The end of the war forestalled any positive result from that but large among their grievances was the fact that the objectives of that war (if so chaotic a conflict could be said to have objectives) were such as would only benefit the southern and western states while doing grave harm to the trade and merchant marine of New England.  Among the articles of trade?  Naval stores, food and saltpeter traded to the common British enemy.

Offline Regullus

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 526
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #247 on: April 15, 2005, 09:41:18 AM »
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).

I could guess at the socio/economic, educational level of the girl who wished for a "loving" father for her child but I would suppose that what is happening with her is that she is perpetuating a cycle of poverty that has not been broken and obviously personal choice is involved. I might add that she appears better educated than her mother.

 As to the girl who gave me a headache, I know her very well, and it is not lack of education, part of it is immaturity, part her character, she has always had a tendancy to creating drama, part reinforcement of her behaviors by certain family members and friends, and personal choice.

Using the word propoganda is hardly an insult. The word is usually used in a negative statement, but look it up. That's what the Constitution was - "Material distributed to win people over to a particular doctrine" or "The systematic widespread promotion of a particular doctrine or idea". I suppose you could call it a doctrine, but the way I see it, you live your beliefs and write or espouse propoganda.

At the time of it's draft, I'm sure they meant well, and indeed believed strongly in what they wrote - their way of life was being seriously threatened, after all.  But it was still a document by the wealthy, literate, god-fearing men, for the wealthy, literate god-fearing men. And it was propoganda.

 Hated to edit that post. Excellent points. Propaganda is not necessarily bad nor used simply to crush the masses. (Although, of course, it has been used for such purposes) Another excellent point or specific quote and is something we should remind ourselves is the context of time in which people lived. "Before one judges another, walk a mile in their moccasins."

 We have an unfortunate tendency to view the world and world events from our comfortable perspectives of the 21st century and be very contemptuous of history and humanity and make sweeping and shallow judgements, "Oh course they were all hypocrites."  

 

@About teenagers and sex and keeping them away from it. Just not possible IMHO, but you can educate them to a point where they get enough information and support to decide for themselves. Kids have a fine sense for bigotry. In a world full of fraud, lies and deception they are not bettered by politicians who occacionally spew forth some catchy phrases and then turn around and revel with their cronies in their deeds and how they got away. The same goes for a consumerist society based on youth and sex which tells its most capable members to abstain from sex yet to be sexually pleasing is at the core of every product from bubblegum to car tires. A driver's license does not make you a responsible driver, but a person who doesn't have a license is a ticking bomb.

Not by people who claim in public that AIDS can be transmitted via sweat and tears, please. America harbours some of the brightest people in the world in every field that science can think of, yet very often I get the idea that there is not much of that light shining through the rest of society. There is no trickle down effect obviously!

 I will give you an unpalatable fact about stds, if you are having sex, you are at risk. The only way an individual may not be at risk for stds is to have both people tested over six months before consummation, (of course one or the other may stray in the time period) use condoms (which are imperfect)  and lock the other person up when not in use (I am pretty sure thats illegal). 75% of women get stds in "monagamous" relationships. How many of us have followed the six month principle and multiple testing? (Forget about the locking up part) I haven't. How likely is it that a majority of a population would follow the six month scenario? Not too likely.

 So this is what ends up being propagated. Limit partners, wear condoms, avoid sharing needles. Reasonable, yet std rates continue to rise.

@The last sentence: Naturally, I disagree (unless you have been watching Jerry Springer/Maury Povich type shows and I must admit that I can't explain those shows but I could see making such a statement after viewing one those programs. :-[)

 I have said this before but it bears repeating. The US is a large and diverse country. I will give several stats for the US and use Austrian stats to contrast differences. Austria is the size of one of our smaller states. Austria could fit into the US mainland about 40 times. Austria has a fairly homogenous population, 88.5% German and a little over 8 million in population. The US's population is about 293 million people, 77.1% white of varying ethnic backgrounds, 12.9% black of varying ethnic backgrounds, the rest are comprised of Latin, Asian, Natives of varying ethnic backgrounds.

 If we were simply to look at the above stats I think we would agree that it would be easier to make sweeping generalizations about Austria than the US.

 Â 

 

 

 


Offline jester

  • Here be dragons...
  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 2416
  • If you fail, fail gloriously.
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #248 on: April 15, 2005, 10:17:01 AM »
@sweeping generalizations about Austria than the US: definitely if they would be based on land mass or ethnic background

The sweat and tears quote was in fact inaccurate as it should have read saliva and tears as in the Frist TV interview. I am not arguing that many ideas are proposed to bring down the number of stds are basically viable, but I doubt that the push towards limiting sexual education in schools helps the cause at all. Limiting your partners is a good idea, but as you have pointed out most women get stds from monogamous relationships (at least on their part). Knowing the dangers can save your life. Education is the only way to dispense knowledge. I think it would be great to let the parents do it, but I doubt that system would work properly. Who else could do it? Private charities? Church?


Statistic in the small country which I life in suggests that teenager's awareness is in steep decline and the dangers of HIV are higly underrated. Many other stds can be cured though so that is why I settled for the central menace, HIV. Perhaps this is not a fitting example for such a wast, diverse country, but there may be some similar patterns.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2005, 11:16:29 AM by jester »
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

Why spend all your day surfing for porn?




Balance in all things
I haven't had this much fun since... the last time.

Offline Evaine Dian

  • Planewalker
  • *****
  • Posts: 565
  • Gender: Female
Re: speaking of stating the obvious.
« Reply #249 on: April 15, 2005, 10:52:18 AM »
Those examples show why obligatory sex ed classes at school make sense (and why they start at elementary school here nowadays).
You obviously don't live in the US.  ;)

Fortunately.  ;)
"Show me how you do that trick! The one that makes me scream", she said,
"the one that makes me laugh!" she said and threw her arms around my neck.
"Show me how you do it and I promise you, I promise that
I'll run away with you, I'll run away with you..."