• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thousands gather for peaceful candlelight vigil at UVA

Peter King said:
You are wrong, they are not complaining about these things because it affects them, they do it because it affects all of us (which technically includes them but is not limited to just them).

And that is because you do not live in a vacuum. In the past everybody cooked at home and all the salt people got in their diet was the salt they put on themselves/put in themselves. Today people use convenience food all the time, which has added salts already and in not too low levels. And that is because most people do not buy it if it does not taste like it has enough salt. People have been getting used to all that food with added salt that people need more all the time to just have the same taste experience.

The same goes with sugar, having 16 ounces is fine if you are not really someone who has weight issues or who uses diet drinks, but this again is monkey see monkey do. People who would do better not to have 16 ounce cups also want them, a lot of them, which does cause health problems for them and issues for everybody else (and I should know, I am morbidly obese). People have been getting so used to huge people, nobody really pays that much attention to them or to their own offspring getting "fuller figured" themselves. And it is an epidemic out there.

And that epidemic from your 16 ounces of sugary drinks combined with the excess of meat eaters cause more environmental issues for everybody. Beef/meat is a "dirty" business. It needs huge fields with crops to feed the beef/meat animals with crops that if used by humans would cause a lot more product to be grown to combat hunger. Also, meat producing is not a thing that is not environmentally sound, they eat a lot and they poop a lot, they urinate a lot. Valuable water resources have to be used to grow the food the animals get to eat and to water the animals themselves. And in a period where water is in short supply, being a part time vegetarian would not be the end of the world.

And that is what (too aggressively I know) the vegetarians are trying to tell us. Meat is not only murder (which I have no problem with) according to them, it is also bad for the environment and bad for humanity. Even not eating meat once a week would help the environment a lot according to some data.

They do not do this to anger or inconvenience you, they do it because they care for the planet, themselves and everybody else too.

And their actions are not bad for the healthcare costs either, fewer fat in the diet through no longer over consumption of meat, not engorging on food to the level we are doing now and choosing to live healthier will not only save money but save lives too. Which they do not do for themselves but also a lot of you and me.

And I do agree with CaptainCourtesy when it comes to right wingers, they do not embrace change willingly, hell they do it kicking and screaming and often with their hands and feet digging into the ground, because they often hate progress. It is not for nothing that they are being called conservatives.
Click to expand...

You just gave me your laundry list of reasons why leftists need to control people - for their own good. The "for the planet" thing is just another excuse to control other people's lives.

CC says the "right" wants to control people for their own moral reasons. Or, it could just possibly be that some guys don't want their kids aborted or some parents don't buy into the whole cutting off your junk and calling yourself a girl thing. Or if you're me, you don't like having to play by the left's politically correct rules and be called names (or even fined) for not going along with it. These people from the left told me that gay marriage would not change my life, but it did. My (global) church no longer performs marriages, although I might be able get an exemption if I wanted to marry my granddaughter off. Or maybe not, I'll know when I get there. There's that ripple effect. The funny thing is that if you want to say that me putting salt on my food or buying the extra large pop affects you but you either don't believe or don't care that your rules affect me. I suspect it's the latter.

But I have broad shoulders, I can live on a planet with others, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that they can't live with me.

I don't hate "progress" when it is progress, but calling some things "progress" and changing things just to change them (which more often than not makes things worse) is not progress, especially when a left leaning government does it.

How about this? Stop helping me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
He is being castigated for not stating the obvious.



No, fascism is decidedly anti-socialism. With socialism, ownership is not merely nominal, it is actual. Fascism is an extreme form of oligarchy which is the antithesis of what socialism is about. Fascism isn't about collectivist thinking at all. It's about power and control of the few, which again, is the antithesis of collectivist thinking. It relies on the supremacy of the few over the many. The state is a figurehead for that. Once you understand that, you know why fascism is nothing like communism or socialism.
Click to expand...
Part of the problem with socialism is that there are no real socialists. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist, yet he is not. France has a socialist government, yet they do not. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist. National Socialists aren't socialists. Venezuela isn't socialist. Finland isn't socialist. So who is? Socialism is an unachievable ideal that different states adopt different aspects of. But if no real socialism exists or is even possible, its rather pointless to even consider it.

As to what is and is not collectivist, lets start with a definition:

"Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the group and its interests. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Collectivists focus on communal, societal, or national interests in various types of political, economic, and educational systems."

Clearly, fascism falls under that umbrella. But is it socialist or, as you say, a form of oligarchy? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure it really makes much difference. The Nazis thought so. They considered themselves the 'true socialists.' One thing that is certain is that they were tyrannical. And the point about socialism is that is leads to tyranny as well. It must. You cannot say that my business that I created is now the property of the people without first erecting a state powerful enough to make that happen. And you cant make that happen without obliterating my rights. Once rights are obliterated, you have tyranny. That is why socialism should be rejected and rejected out of hand.

OK. This I can pretty much agree with.
Click to expand...
:thumbs:
 
Fletch said:
Part of the problem with socialism is that there are no real socialists. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist, yet he is not. France has a socialist government, yet they do not. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist. National Socialists aren't socialists. Venezuela isn't socialist. Finland isn't socialist. So who is? Socialism is an unachievable ideal that different states adopt different aspects of. But if no real socialism exists or is even possible, its rather pointless to even consider it.

As to what is and is not collectivist, lets start with a definition:

"Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the group and its interests. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Collectivists focus on communal, societal, or national interests in various types of political, economic, and educational systems."

Clearly, fascism falls under that umbrella. But is it socialist or, as you say, a form of oligarchy? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure it really makes much difference. The Nazis thought so. They considered themselves the 'true socialists.' One thing that is certain is that they were tyrannical. And the point about socialism is that is leads to tyranny as well. It must. You cannot say that my business that I created is now the property of the people without first erecting a state powerful enough to make that happen. And you cant make that happen without obliterating my rights. Once rights are obliterated, you have tyranny. That is why socialism should be rejected and rejected out of hand.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

France does not have a socialist government, it has a centrist government.

And fascism is under no circumstance socialist because it really does not have a collectivist ideology but a centralist ideology where one person or a small group of people will decide what the group has to think and live by. In socialism (in real socialism) it is the democratic control/social ownership of the means of production. It is collectivism and personal ownership often does not exist. That is not how fascism works.

Socialism by it's nature is progressive in it's nature, fascism is not that, they are reactionary and shy away from changes when they are progressive changes.

Socialism is internationalist in nature, fascism is very very very authoritarian nationalistic, two very different ideologies.

Fascism is also anti-revolutionary and loves the status quo or better yet very anti-change, socialism is often very revolutionary and changed orientated.

True socialism (which is nowhere) is very much based in democratic ideology, fascism is totally anti-liberal democracy. They would much rather concentrate power in a few strong people or better yet a really strong person like the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler and Il Duce Mussolini.

Fascism is also a lot more violent in nature than pure socialism.
 
it's just me said:
You just gave me your laundry list of reasons why leftists need to control people - for their own good. The "for the planet" thing is just another excuse to control other people's lives.

CC says the "right" wants to control people for their own moral reasons. Or, it could just possibly be that some guys don't want their kids aborted or some parents don't buy into the whole cutting off your junk and calling yourself a girl thing. Or if you're me, you don't like having to play by the left's politically correct rules and be called names (or even fined) for not going along with it. These people from the left told me that gay marriage would not change my life, but it did. My (global) church no longer performs marriages, although I might be able get an exemption if I wanted to marry my granddaughter off. Or maybe not, I'll know when I get there. There's that ripple effect. The funny thing is that if you want to say that me putting salt on my food or buying the extra large pop affects you but you either don't believe or don't care that your rules affect me. I suspect it's the latter.

But I have broad shoulders, I can live on a planet with others, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that they can't live with me.

I don't hate "progress" when it is progress, but calling some things "progress" and changing things just to change them (which more often than not makes things worse) is not progress, especially when a left leaning government does it.

How about this? Stop helping me.
Click to expand...

If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. You have no right to tell me I cannot. If you don't want to have SRS don't do it. Don't tell me I cannot. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't do it. Don't tell me I cannot. These are all things that conservatives do not abide by. I am uninterested in what conservative parents think about trannsexuals or gays. There is no evidence that any harm children any more than heterosexuals. In fact, there is some evidence that says they would do so less, so if you are concerned about harm, you are replacing facts with morality or information with bigotry. If you don't want to have to explain these things to your children, go move to a cave somewhere so you can control each and everything that your child encounters. Or you could be a parent. And if your church chose to no longer perform marriages because they thought they'd have to perform gay marriages, then your church did two things that were wrong. Firstly, no church MUST perform SSM. And secondly, if the church was so "distraught" at the horror of having to perform SSM that they decided they wouldn't marry anyone, then it wasn't SSM than caused the change... it was your church. Blame them.

You want to eat tons of sugar or salt? Feel free. Do it in your own home. You are not being prevented. You want to smoke? Go ahead. Just don't do it around others. You're not being prevented. There's a difference between being told that you can do things, just not in certain places and being told you cannot do things. Liberals do the former. Conservatives do the latter.
 
Fletch said:
Part of the problem with socialism is that there are no real socialists. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist, yet he is not. France has a socialist government, yet they do not. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics wasn't socialist. National Socialists aren't socialists. Venezuela isn't socialist. Finland isn't socialist. So who is? Socialism is an unachievable ideal that different states adopt different aspects of. But if no real socialism exists or is even possible, its rather pointless to even consider it.

As to what is and is not collectivist, lets start with a definition:

"Collectivism is the moral stance, political philosophy, ideology, or social outlook that emphasizes the group and its interests. Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. Collectivists focus on communal, societal, or national interests in various types of political, economic, and educational systems."

Clearly, fascism falls under that umbrella. But is it socialist or, as you say, a form of oligarchy? I'm not sure, and I'm not sure it really makes much difference. The Nazis thought so. They considered themselves the 'true socialists.' One thing that is certain is that they were tyrannical. And the point about socialism is that is leads to tyranny as well. It must. You cannot say that my business that I created is now the property of the people without first erecting a state powerful enough to make that happen. And you cant make that happen without obliterating my rights. Once rights are obliterated, you have tyranny. That is why socialism should be rejected and rejected out of hand.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I have said many times in my years at DP that socialism, on a large, country-wide scale, is a complete failure as a system, political and/or economic. 100% of the time it turns into totalitarianism. In and of itself is the opposite of fascism and totalitarianism, but the problem is human psychology. In order for socialism to work, EVERYONE has to agree with the ideology and buy into it. All you need is one person who "wants to get ahead" and the ideology fails... and you never have just one person. On a small scale, socialism can work well, but in those cases you have a small number of humans to be concerned with, most or all of whom choose that particular lifestyle. Large scale? Never work. Oh, and another ideology that doesn't work for conceptually similar but specifically different reasons is libertarianism. In fact, I'd say that the only ideology that works on a large scale is capitalism. Everything else is cute in theory, but short on practicality.

As far as the Nazis go, they were as socialist as North Korea is a republic. Not at all.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. You have no right to tell me I cannot. If you don't want to have SRS don't do it. Don't tell me I cannot. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't do it. Don't tell me I cannot. These are all things that conservatives do not abide by. I am uninterested in what conservative parents think about trannsexuals or gays. There is no evidence that any harm children any more than heterosexuals. In fact, there is some evidence that says they would do so less, so if you are concerned about harm, you are replacing facts with morality or information with bigotry. If you don't want to have to explain these things to your children, go move to a cave somewhere so you can control each and everything that your child encounters. Or you could be a parent. And if your church chose to no longer perform marriages because they thought they'd have to perform gay marriages, then your church did two things that were wrong. Firstly, no church MUST perform SSM. And secondly, if the church was so "distraught" at the horror of having to perform SSM that they decided they wouldn't marry anyone, then it wasn't SSM than caused the change... it was your church. Blame them.

You want to eat tons of sugar or salt? Feel free. Do it in your own home. You are not being prevented. You want to smoke? Go ahead. Just don't do it around others. You're not being prevented. There's a difference between being told that you can do things, just not in certain places and being told you cannot do things. Liberals do the former. Conservatives do the latter.
Click to expand...

My church quit performing marriages so as not to be acting as agents of the state. You guys are always screaming about "separation of Church and state". Well, you got your way. If you don't like it, don't come to my church. And under no circumstances will you tell me what I should think about anything because I have more information than you know about, and more experience than you know about. Some of it is even in the field of psychology and I am not even going to say what I know or how I know it because I know what I'll hear: the same thing I heard in response to my declaration of vocation.

So, If you don't want to eat salt, don't. But I am going to. If you don't want the extra large sodas, don't buy them. But I will. Wherever I please. And I don't smoke anymore but if I decide one day that I am going to have a cigar you had better stay out of my space because I am not going to put it out if you come walking up. That's called freedom, dude.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. You have no right to tell me I cannot. If you don't want to have SRS don't do it. Don't tell me I cannot. If you don't want to marry someone of the same sex, don't do it. Don't tell me I cannot. These are all things that conservatives do not abide by. I am uninterested in what conservative parents think about trannsexuals or gays. There is no evidence that any harm children any more than heterosexuals. In fact, there is some evidence that says they would do so less, so if you are concerned about harm, you are replacing facts with morality or information with bigotry. If you don't want to have to explain these things to your children, go move to a cave somewhere so you can control each and everything that your child encounters. Or you could be a parent. And if your church chose to no longer perform marriages because they thought they'd have to perform gay marriages, then your church did two things that were wrong. Firstly, no church MUST perform SSM. And secondly, if the church was so "distraught" at the horror of having to perform SSM that they decided they wouldn't marry anyone, then it wasn't SSM than caused the change... it was your church. Blame them.

You want to eat tons of sugar or salt? Feel free. Do it in your own home. You are not being prevented. You want to smoke? Go ahead. Just don't do it around others. You're not being prevented. There's a difference between being told that you can do things, just not in certain places and being told you cannot do things. Liberals do the former. Conservatives do the latter.
Click to expand...

One more thing: are you REALLY presuming to know the Church's thought processes on no longer performing marriages?
 
it's just me said:
My church quit performing marriages so as not to be acting as agents of the state. You guys are always screaming about "separation of Church and state". Well, you got your way. If you don't like it, don't come to my church. And under no circumstances will you tell me what I should think about anything because I have more information than you know about, and more experience than you know about. Some of it is even in the field of psychology and I am not even going to say what I know or how I know it because I know what I'll hear: the same thing I heard in response to my declaration of vocation.
Click to expand...

And as I told you, that's on your church. Not on the state, not on liberals. YOUR CHURCH. It choose to not do marriages anymore simply because they might have to do the horrible act of marrying gays. How terrible. But I'd love for you to explain how the government informed your church that you all were REQUIRED to perform SSM. As far as I know, no place of worship is required to do so.

So, If you don't want to eat salt, don't. But I am going to. If you don't want the extra large sodas, don't buy them. But I will. Wherever I please.
Click to expand...

That's fine with me. It's your life. I like salt too, and if it wasn't for the fact that I am no longer allowed due to health reasons, I'd still be drinking 64 ounces of soda every day.

And I don't smoke anymore but if I decide one day that I am going to have a cigar you had better stay out of my space because I am not going to put it out if you come walking up. That's called freedom, dude.
Click to expand...

If I see you smoking a cigar, I won't approach you. Of course, don't come into MY space smoking that cigar. Stay in your own. That's also called freedom.
 
it's just me said:
One more thing: are you REALLY presuming to know the Church's thought processes on no longer performing marriages?
Click to expand...

And that's why I'm asking. Tell me how the government informed your church that it HAD to perform SSM. If not, then there is no reason that they had to, hence there is no reason they had to stop marriages altogether.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
And as I told you, that's on your church. Not on the state, not on liberals. YOUR CHURCH. It choose to not do marriages anymore simply because they might have to do the horrible act of marrying gays. How terrible. But I'd love for you to explain how the government informed your church that you all were REQUIRED to perform SSM. As far as I know, no place of worship is required to do so.
Click to expand...

Is that what we thought? I'd like to see proof of that. And you are still sticking with the same narrative you were using before, but the game has changed.

That's fine with me. It's your life. I like salt too, and if it wasn't for the fact that I am no longer allowed due to health reasons, I'd still be drinking 64 ounces of soda every day.
Click to expand...

I don't like salt, I like food that tastes good. (Geoff Zakarian)
 
it's just me said:
Is that what we thought? I'd like to see proof of that. And you are still sticking with the same narrative you were using before, but the game has changed.
Click to expand...

There are only two possibilities: government intervention or choice. Which is it?

I don't like salt, I like food that tastes good. (Geoff Zakarian)
Click to expand...

I never add salt to anything, but I don't mind things that are salted. I prefer lemon or peppers as a substitute, though.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
These are just right wing talking points. The Russian Revolution demonstrated what I've always said: it is impossible for a socialist or communist state to exist on a large scale without immediately turning into a totalitarian state. The USSR wasn't communist in essence. It was a totalitarian oligarchy. That's far closer to what right wingers want... who you can marry, what bathroom you can use, what you can do to your body, etc... On this very site I see plenty of right wingers trying to dictate that their own morality should be the law of the land. That's what many right wingers do. With left wingers it's not about morality, per se, but about the perception of equality. Both are wrong, but both are quite different.
Click to expand...

Dictate their own morality? Bathrooms? Right Wingers?

Until someone decided to start telling people with a mental disorder that the world owes them "special rights" nobody, right or left wing, seemed to have a problem with separate gender bathrooms.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
You misunderstand. What I'd like to see is your average right winger confront the extremist right winger on their behavior... and the same thing for left wingers. My theory has always been that it takes the more sane members of one's own ideology to effectively squash the extremists of that same ideology.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

Even though I typically lean to the right, I am frequently called a "liberal" by people.

Hell, in fact on the original Charlottesville thread It was insinuated that I was a nazi at one point, and a lefty at another.

Nobody is going to change from being called out.... it just hardens their heart to their own beliefs.


Very, Very few people on this forum change their minds about something from reading posts. Makes me wonder why I bother.
 
it's just me said:
Here's one reason:

Gay Marriage Decision Is Right Time to End Religious Tax Exemptions | Time.com

And when you work on a shoestring budget as it is, you don't have a lot left over for a wasteful government.

To explain further would require an understanding of the sacraments that I have no intention of talking about here.
Click to expand...

Your "reason" isn't a reason. That's a Time magazine article. It's not law and hasn't been applied as law in this case. I really see that as an excuse.
 
Caine said:
Dictate their own morality? Bathrooms? Right Wingers?

Until someone decided to start telling people with a mental disorder that the world owes them "special rights" nobody, right or left wing, seemed to have a problem with separate gender bathrooms.
Click to expand...

Since it's not a mental disorder, your comments above are completely worthless. Understand what it is and then we can discuss it.
 
Caine said:
Wrong.

Even though I typically lean to the right, I am frequently called a "liberal" by people.

Hell, in fact on the original Charlottesville thread It was insinuated that I was a nazi at one point, and a lefty at another.

Nobody is going to change from being called out.... it just hardens their heart to their own beliefs.


Very, Very few people on this forum change their minds about something from reading posts. Makes me wonder why I bother.
Click to expand...

No, I am correct and I didn't say that it would change someone's mind. That's not the purpose. But when confronted by one's opposing side, THAT tends to harden one's own beliefs. Psychologically, it's challenging and causes one to feel attacked from that evil opposing force. If one gets confronted by one's OWN side, however, that is quite different. It feels more isolating, and though it might not change one's mind, it might shut one up for fear of being blasted even by those who you thought were your allies. And shutting them up is fine with me.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Your "reason" isn't a reason. That's a Time magazine article. It's not law and hasn't been applied as law in this case. I really see that as an excuse.
Click to expand...

All right, I'll draw you a picture:

We didn't want to have to be forced into the position of having to defend the sacraments to people who obviously couldn't care less about the sacraments, and we didn't want to be party to a lawsuit from somebody who thought it was their "right" to have a Christian wedding when they weren't eligible. You can hand wave that away and say "that's not law" but it doesn't have to be law, a mere judgment will do. And don't try to tell me that will never happen, because the bakers, photographers and florists who lost their businesses had never happened before, until it happened.

You can say that the Church made the wrong choice but the bottom line is that you told me back then that my life would not change but it did, through no fault of my own. And the lives of those bakers, florists, and photographers changed, too. Blow it off all you want to but the pushback has already started and it is going to continue. You can't control the lives of others forever. You can't make people agree with you.
 
it's just me said:
All right, I'll draw you a picture:

We didn't want to have to be forced into the position of having to defend the sacraments to people who obviously couldn't care less about the sacraments, and we didn't want to be party to a lawsuit from somebody who thought it was their "right" to have a Christian wedding when they weren't eligible. You can hand wave that away and say "that's not law" but it doesn't have to be law, a mere judgment will do. And don't try to tell me that will never happen, because the bakers, photographers and florists who lost their businesses had never happened before, until it happened.

You can say that the Church made the wrong choice but the bottom line is that you told me back then that my life would not change but it did, through no fault of my own. And the lives of those bakers, florists, and photographers changed, too. Blow it off all you want to but the pushback has already started and it is going to continue. You can't control the lives of others forever. You can't make people agree with you.
Click to expand...

Bakers, photographers, and florists did not have the same Constitutional protections that the Church does. I don't completely agree with happened to those others, but to me, your Church really over reacted to something that hasn't happened and for it TO happen would have to alter how we deal with the Church and the 1st Amendment. Your life changed because of a Church decision, not a government decision. No one controlled you.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Bakers, photographers, and florists did not have the same Constitutional protections that the Church does. I don't completely agree with happened to those others, but to me, your Church really over reacted to something that hasn't happened and for it TO happen would have to alter how we deal with the Church and the 1st Amendment. Your life changed because of a Church decision, not a government decision. No one controlled you.
Click to expand...

It's doesn't matter whose decision it was, life for me is different now. And if you don't think people are looking to change the first amendment, it's already started. Fortunately, that was Harry Reid, who has since been excised.
 
Please watch this!

 
it's just me said:
It's doesn't matter whose decision it was, life for me is different now. And if you don't think people are looking to change the first amendment, it's already started. Fortunately, that was Harry Reid, who has since been excised.
Click to expand...

It changed, but it wasn't about liberals, which was the point of what we were discussing.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
It changed, but it wasn't about liberals, which was the point of what we were discussing.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that they instigated it. The tiny percentage of homosexuals in this country could never have mustered the political clout to do this.

Look, I don't want to go on about this for the next week, I think the rapport we have developed over the past year or so is too valuable to risk it. BUT, there are unintended consequences in all actions.
 
it's just me said:
Except for the fact that they instigated it. The tiny percentage of homosexuals in this country could never have mustered the political clout to do this.

Look, I don't want to go on about this for the next week, I think the rapport we have developed over the past year or so is too valuable to risk it. BUT, there are unintended consequences in all actions.
Click to expand...

Again, this had nothing to do with liberals. It had to do with actions from your Church that seem completely unreasonable based on the law. Regardless, I will not respond any further to this line out of respect for our mutual positive interactions, however, I do completely disagree with what you are suggesting, here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom