Straight, unbiased reporting is much more rare these days ...
For the most part corporate media make foreign policy news or political reporting to either promote or discredit a particular Party or official. Also the media censors increasingly large amounts of info to protect govmnt or business interests.Lastly, the corp. media injects certain items or falsehoods to keep the public divided or in the dark about the truth.
"The press is the hired agent of a moneyed system, set up for no other reason than to tell us lies where their interests are concerned." — Henry Adams
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
The reason wedge issues are so complicated is because the conflicts of interest created by them are created at the point where the line between the two blurs. Is the right of a culture to protect what they see as a defenseless form of life, more important than the right of a woman to be free from having to sustain that life? That's an impossible question to answer, because a government is assigned to protect the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the members of that society. What happens when life and liberty are in conflict? What happens when one person's liberty interferes with another's ability to pursue happiness?
I'm not trying to diminish your arguments at all. You are a highly intelligent person, and I have thoroughly enjoyed our debates here, and in other threads. You raise excellent points at every turn.
My only frustration is that we seem to have fallen into a pattern of arguing over semantics, and prioritizing the debate over coming to consensus. I have the feeling that you and I agree on a number of points, but I also get the feeling that you REALLY like to argue.
If you have had as much fun debating here as I have, then I hope you have as much respect for me as a result as I have for you. At the same time, while I love a good debate, my own participation here is motivated by my concern that our nation needs us united against threats, and the goals of those who threaten our society are served by our continued division and state of distraction against their detrimental actions. I have the feeling that if we focused on our common values, the two of us could make significant headway in affecting positive outcomes in our society.
My goal here is to contribute to society by encouraging cooperation. I think the civil discourse is being manipulated to divide us, and my ultimate goal is to eliminate the distractions to that all of the energy people put into the civil discourse can be directed in a positive way to achieve our common goals of effective government that protects our life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hope you and I share this goal. If so, I hope that we can agree to have our discussions with the goal of finding common cause, rather than just arguing to win (as much fun as that has been to this point).
However, I will point out how your continued dishonest misrepresentations undermine your claim that you desire rational discussion and cooperation.
Let me know when you want to respond to something I actually did say, instead of arguing against what you have conjured up.
I said that you equated my argument to Marxism because you equated my argument to appeal to majority rule, and Marxism is government that employs that fallacy in the very way that makes it a fallacious and detrimental. It's not an insult to you, or a misrepresentation of your argument. You didn't call me a Marxist, but you directly implied that I adhere to the fundamental principle of Marxism, which is appeal to majority rule to the exclusion of all other things.
I also notice that you completely rebuffed my appeal to find common ground on the issues, even after I made it clear that I wasn't trying to attack you or misrepresent your argument. Why did you ignore my attempts to resolve the issue with further attacks on my integrity?
Last edited by SocialEngineer; 05-09-13 at 02:27 PM.
Let me know when you want to get back to the subject without making false attributions about what I said
BTW, we were discussing your claim that the way to determine if a system is "better" is by how many people are happy with the law. This came out of your claim that you could objectively prove, using statistical methods, that it's better to have states and localities decide certain issues (which ones?) instead of the feds. I mention this in case you ever want to stop distracting with your Marxist straw men