Malika2 wrote: Many of us aren't from the US and well...over here we've been saturated with the US elections! Damn the US elections get more coverage than our own elections for crying out loud!
"Whoever wins, we lose..."

syr8766 wrote:Apparently, if you vote, you can get a free coffee at Starbucks.

I'm pretty sure this is a brain-washing technique used by the illuminati, and I voted this morning and was going to vote anyway, but really, coffee.

Blackmoor wrote:

Malika2 wrote: Many of us aren't from the US and well...over here we've been saturated with the US elections! Damn the US elections get more coverage than our own elections for crying out loud!
"Whoever wins, we lose..."

You think you are sick of the election, try living in the US. I have been sick of this election for months and I am glad that we are finally getting it over with.


Oh, and all hail hypno toad.

Panic wrote:yeah,
Why vote, one vote doesn't change anything...

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I voted straight American Communist Party because People's Daily said only Marxism can explain the current financial crisis.

Salad_Fingers wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I voted straight American Communist Party because People's Daily said only Marxism can explain the current financial crisis.

It has been established that free-market capitalism merely leads to rampant greed and exploitation and results in an inevitable financial collapse. Well good old Karl Marx warned us about all this almost what 150 years ago?

Yay for socialism, shoot the capatalist, man the baricades etc etc...

Though to be fair Marx seems to be right in Das capital about alot of the stuff that is happening at the moment

Le Grognard wrote:Don't like Obama. Don't like McCain's choice for VP. I will voice my choice by not voting.

Salad_Fingers wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I voted straight American Communist Party because People's Daily said only Marxism can explain the current financial crisis.

It has been established that free-market capitalism merely leads to rampant greed and exploitation and results in an inevitable financial collapse. Well good old Karl Marx warned us about all this almost what 150 years ago?

Yay for socialism, shoot the capatalist, man the baricades etc etc...

Though to be fair Marx seems to be right in Das capital about alot of the stuff that is happening at the moment

Ozymandias wrote:

Salad_Fingers wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I voted straight American Communist Party because People's Daily said only Marxism can explain the current financial crisis.

It has been established that free-market capitalism merely leads to rampant greed and exploitation and results in an inevitable financial collapse. Well good old Karl Marx warned us about all this almost what 150 years ago?

Yay for socialism, shoot the capatalist, man the baricades etc etc...

Though to be fair Marx seems to be right in Das capital about alot of the stuff that is happening at the moment

The same stuff was happening when he wrote his theories. Yet he forgot that humans are innovative and always find solutions to the current problems. Things got better then, they'll get better now.


Back OT: I'm writing in Teh Spase Emperor for 2008!

Ozymandias, King of Kings

NAVARRO wrote:I wonder how much money goes down the drain in such never ending campaigns?
But yeah I'm sick and tired of US elections and I live in Portugal...

Datadep5 wrote:Hopefully the trend of "picking the lesser of two evils" goes away.

Salad_Fingers wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I voted straight American Communist Party because People's Daily said only Marxism can explain the current financial crisis.

It has been established that free-market capitalism merely leads to rampant greed and exploitation and results in an inevitable financial collapse. Well good old Karl Marx warned us about all this almost what 150 years ago?

Yay for socialism, shoot the capatalist, man the baricades etc etc...

Though to be fair Marx seems to be right in Das capital about alot of the stuff that is happening at the moment

budro wrote:Think about it - if you had a couple billion dollars what would you do with it?

Panic wrote:yeah,
Why vote, one vote doesn't change anything...

ChaosDave wrote:
One thing that you forget to mention about socialism/Marxism is the inevitable abuse of power and the mass murders resulting from a typical leftist tyranny.

lord_blackfang wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
One thing that you forget to mention about socialism/Marxism is the inevitable abuse of power and the mass murders resulting from a typical leftist tyranny.

I gre up in communism and I don't recall any mass murders. Some political prisoners and some abuse of power, sure, but less of both than in the modern USA, the self-proclaimed cradle of democracy (ROFLMAO)

Le Grognard wrote:Don't like Obama. Don't like McCain's choice for VP. I will voice my choice by not voting. That way I can gripe at whoever wins and say "well, I didn't vote for them." Besides, Rush (the band) said in the song Free Will; "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

Unless Hypno-Toad gets elected, then I'm jumping on the bandwagon. Or Cthulhu. Or Papa Nurgle.

syr8766 wrote:Apparently, if you vote, you can get a free coffee at Starbucks.

I'm pretty sure this is a brain-washing technique used by the illuminati, and I voted this morning and was going to vote anyway, but really, coffee.

Frazzled wrote:
Really?

20MM to 50MM: USSR
25MM to 100MM: China
1MM (population of 4MM at time): Cambodia

On the positive I now know to doubt the veracity of anything you post from this point forward.

ChaosDave wrote:

Salad_Fingers wrote:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:I voted straight American Communist Party because People's Daily said only Marxism can explain the current financial crisis.

It has been established that free-market capitalism merely leads to rampant greed and exploitation and results in an inevitable financial collapse. Well good old Karl Marx warned us about all this almost what 150 years ago?

Yay for socialism, shoot the capatalist, man the baricades etc etc...

Though to be fair Marx seems to be right in Das capital about alot of the stuff that is happening at the moment

No it has not been established that a free market will always collapse.

One thing that you forget to mention about socialism/Marxism is the inevitable abuse of power and the mass murders resulting from a typical leftist tyranny.

Kilkrazy wrote:

The same happens under rightist tyrannies such as Argentina under the generals, etc.

All tyrannies are bad.

Railguns wrote:Sometimes I wonder how an election would turn out if campaigns spent their money on actually educating people about the where, when, why and hows of issues, rather than relying on expected baises and ignorance to convince someone to vote a certain way.


It'll never happen though.

BloodofOrks wrote:The largest expansions of the US government were implemented by Ronald Regan and George W Bush. What politicians DO is often very different from what they SAY.

ChaosDave wrote:

BloodofOrks wrote:The largest expansions of the US government were implemented by Ronald Regan and George W Bush. What politicians DO is often very different from what they SAY.

You need to finish that quote. "Largest expansion since FDR"

Also note that those expansions were is response to outside threats. One ended the cold war and the other to fight terrorism.

Frazzled wrote:I cede your point if you can show how thats relevant to the point of the brilliantly false statement that blackfang somehow survived communism without being aware of the millions of dead that resulted from it.

jmurph wrote:Can ChaosDave please take his political pushing elsewhere? I hear freerepublic is a pretty good sight for rightards... Most leftards prefer democraticunderground.

The problem with threads like these is people confuse responsible civic activism (voting = the win!) with political dogmatism (vote my way or you = the evil!).

I vote Slaanesh! moar bewbs nao!!!111!!11! kkthx

ChaosDave wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The same happens under rightist tyrannies such as Argentina under the generals, etc.

All tyrannies are bad.

The difference being that the natural progression for a leftist government is inevitably a tyranny. Let me put it to you in a way that you can understand using current conservative thought vs. liberal thought in the USA.

ChaosDave wrote:
Conservatives for the most part want smaller government, less involvement by the government on the lives of it's citizens, less taxes and less of the government telling you what you can and cannot do. Essentially government is a necessary evil that is tolerated and never trusted. This means that the people are always more important than the state and abuse of power is more difficult as the government simply doesn't have the power to abuse it's citizens.

Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

Necros wrote:so I think I will be voting for HypnoToad as well.

ChaosDave wrote:Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

ChaosDave wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

The same happens under rightist tyrannies such as Argentina under the generals, etc.

All tyrannies are bad.

The difference being that the natural progression for a leftist government is inevitably a tyranny. Let me put it to you in a way that you can understand using current conservative thought vs. liberal thought in the USA.

Conservatives for the most part want smaller government, less involvement by the government on the lives of it's citizens, less taxes and less of the government telling you what you can and cannot do. Essentially government is a necessary evil that is tolerated and never trusted. This means that the people are always more important than the state and abuse of power is more difficult as the government simply doesn't have the power to abuse it's citizens.

Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I cede your point if you can show how thats relevant to the point of the brilliantly false statement that blackfang somehow survived communism without being aware of the millions of dead that resulted from it.

Because the USSR and China were only two communist states ever, right?

My whole country has 2 million people, so I think I'd notice if they all vanished into the gulags one night.

But hey, don't let your "democratic" brainwashing stop you from calling me a liar.

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I cede your point if you can show how thats relevant to the point of the brilliantly false statement that blackfang somehow survived communism without being aware of the millions of dead that resulted from it.

Because the USSR and China were only two communist states ever, right?

My whole country has 2 million people, so I think I'd notice if they all vanished into the gulags one night.

But hey, don't let your "democratic" brainwashing stop you from calling me a liar.

budro wrote:
Which is why the GOP is taking a nose dive this round of elections. They have abandonded their core values (fiscal responsibility and smaller government) in favor of entitlement and expanded government control of the american public (ohh, it's the government's decision whether a brain-dead woman can be taken off life support! Where's the small govt. in that viewpoint?).

Centurian99 wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
That's a completely laughable argument. I'm sorry, but it is. Any kind of government taken to extremes leads to tyranny. If you go off the leftist deep end, you're a commie. If you go off the right deep end, its fascism.

ChaosDave wrote:
Conservatives for the most part want smaller government, less involvement by the government on the lives of it's citizens, less taxes and less of the government telling you what you can and cannot do. Essentially government is a necessary evil that is tolerated and never trusted. This means that the people are always more important than the state and abuse of power is more difficult as the government simply doesn't have the power to abuse it's citizens.

Liberals on the other hand want big government. They intend for the government to take control of major aspects of the citizens lives to allow them to "redistribute wealth" and force everyone into an economic equality. Here in lies the problem. Once the government is given these powers it is extremely difficult to remove said powers and the acquisition of more and more power becomes easier and easier. This creates a situation where the state becomes more important than the people since it is controlling every aspect of it's citizens lives and determines what is best for them and itself. Once that happens killing off "undesirable elements" becomes second nature simply by being "good for the state".

Apart from the totally prejudicial phrasing and framing, there's so many things wrong with this statement. Lets start with the idea that there's a "conservative" base type that makes up the majority of the Republican vote. There isn't. What you're describing is the libertarian wing of the party - which forms a sizable, but nowhere near a majority share of the party.

The majority of the Republican base consists of one thing: the religious right, what I call the theocons. They're conservative in their social views, have a variety of economic views, but vote based on their social beliefs. When it comes to those beliefs, they're FULLY in favor of government interference - as long as its on their behalf.

Liberals don't want big government. They want a government that actually works to deal with the problems that are too big for individuals to solve.

Frazzled wrote:
Show me a country that was communist and I'll give you 9 out of 10 they were hifding the bodies by the bucketload. What tyrranic state are you supposedly from?

Centurian99 wrote:

The majority of the Republican base consists of one thing: the religious right, what I call the theocons. They're conservative in their social views, have a variety of economic views, but vote based on their social beliefs. When it comes to those beliefs, they're FULLY in favor of government interference - as long as its on their behalf.

Centurian99 wrote:

budro wrote:
Which is why the GOP is taking a nose dive this round of elections. They have abandonded their core values (fiscal responsibility and smaller government) in favor of entitlement and expanded government control of the american public (ohh, it's the government's decision whether a brain-dead woman can be taken off life support! Where's the small govt. in that viewpoint?).

I'll have to disagree. The problem isn't that the Republicans abandoned their core values - its that they've got three, radically different, and ultimately incompatible sets of core values. Theocons, Neocons, and the libertarian wings all have different objectives, and those objectives are essentially all contradictory.

Since 1968, the Republican electoral strategy as such has essentially been one of fear and demonization of the opposition. And essentially, the result of that is being reduced to being a regional party.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Grandfathers?

That would most likely have been the Germans during WW2 than the Soviets, surely?

N.B. Not trying to correct you, just pointing out.

Wikipedia wrote:This article deals with the occupation of Poland by Germany and the Soviet Union during the Second World War (1939–1945). In the beginning of the war (September, 1939) the territory of Poland was divided between the Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (USSR). In summer-autumn 1941 the territories annexed by the Soviets were overrun by Nazi Germany in the course of the initially successful German attack on the USSR. After several years of fighting, the Red Army was able to repel the invaders and drive the Nazi forces out of the USSR and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Both powers were hostile to the Polish culture and the Polish people, aiming at their destruction.[1] Before Operation Barbarossa, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union coordinated their Poland-related policies, most visibly in the four Gestapo-NKVD Conferences, where the occupants discussed plans for dealing with the Polish resistance movement and future destruction of Poland.[2]

Over 6 million Polish citizens — nearly 21.4% of Poland's population — died between 1939 and 1945.[3] Over 90% of the death toll came through non-military losses, as most of the civilians were targeted by various deliberate actions by Germans and Soviets.[3] There is some controversy as to whether Soviet policies were harsher than those of the Nazis.[4][5]

Frazzled wrote:You mean the country that split up into Serbia/Bosnia/Kosova/Croatia? Land of Tito? The one with its own website under the UN International Criminal tribunal? http://www.un.org/icty/

Yea no mass graves there...

ChaosDave wrote:
I find it interesting that you assume by my stating "conservative" that I meant republican. Nowhere did I mention party affiliation. The only reason I even put conservative or according to you "libertarian party" thought was for contrast.

ChaosDave wrote:
As for liberals and big government, well your statement tells all. Government doesn't solve problems, the people do. The idea that creating a massive bureaucracy to "handle" any problem is absurd but this is exactly what is done to "deal with" any problem "too big for individuals to solve". In fact I would ask that you tell me one US government bureaucracy that is efficient and isn't plagued by cost overruns or corruption? Hell tell me one that actually works and solves or has solved the problem it was created to "deal with".

wyomingfox wrote:

Centurian99 wrote:

The majority of the Republican base consists of one thing: the religious right, what I call the theocons. They're conservative in their social views, have a variety of economic views, but vote based on their social beliefs. When it comes to those beliefs, they're FULLY in favor of government interference - as long as its on their behalf.

Same could be said about all organizations, including liberal ones. That is why they are called special interests, and why they spend billions of dollars to ensure the government votes there way.

budro wrote:
The majority of american voters are much more moderate then either party would like them to be. But since the rabid left and right both raise more money and make more noise, that's what you hear about all the time. Which leads to choosing the lesser of two evils for the average voter.

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

His charisma and a sense of solidarity, actually. The wonderful new cutthroat capitalism makes me vomit.

I don't think there have been any political murders after the post-war mop-up, where undoubtedly some dissidents were thrown in the pits along with the actual traitors. There were a handful of political prisoners and lots of censorship, but the fact that we went from communism to democracy without outside intervention* speaks volumes about how "soft" the regime was.

*UN peace forces watching from a safe distance how the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians slaughtered eachother doesn't really count

lord_blackfang wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny thing I thought but it turns out Tito's secret police are what kept that country together, but I agree about the rest of it.

How many died while Tito was in power?

His charisma and a sense of solidarity, actually. The wonderful new cutthroat capitalism makes me vomit.

I don't think there have been any political murders after the post-war mop-up, where undoubtedly some dissidents were thrown in the pits along with the actual traitors. There were a handful of political prisoners and lots of censorship, but the fact that we went from communism to democracy without outside intervention* speaks volumes about how "soft" the regime was.

*UN peace forces watching from a safe distance how the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians slaughtered eachother doesn't really count

jmurph wrote:Can ChaosDave please take his political pushing elsewhere? I hear freerepublic is a pretty good sight for rightards... Most leftards prefer democraticunderground.

lord_blackfang wrote:That little weapons test the USA did on Serbia happened 8 years after the fall of communism, sparky. You're going to blame the Shiite/Sunite conflicts in Iraq on communists next.

Centurian99 wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
As for liberals and big government, well your statement tells all. Government doesn't solve problems, the people do. The idea that creating a massive bureaucracy to "handle" any problem is absurd but this is exactly what is done to "deal with" any problem "too big for individuals to solve". In fact I would ask that you tell me one US government bureaucracy that is efficient and isn't plagued by cost overruns or corruption? Hell tell me one that actually works and solves or has solved the problem it was created to "deal with".

Here's the part that I've never gotten (and the reason I'm a Democrat). "For the people, by the people, and of the people." We like to blame government for being ineffective - but that's saying that we're not responsible for what the government does. Which is hogwash, in a representative democracy. We may not be directly responsible, but we choose the people who are. And its our job to hold our elected officials responsible.

ChaosDave wrote:
As for liberals and big government, well your statement tells all. Government doesn't solve problems, the people do. The idea that creating a massive bureaucracy to "handle" any problem is absurd but this is exactly what is done to "deal with" any problem "too big for individuals to solve".

ChaosDave wrote:
In fact I would ask that you tell me one US government bureaucracy that is efficient and isn't plagued by cost overruns or corruption? Hell tell me one that actually works and solves or has solved the problem it was created to "deal with".

lord_blackfang wrote:Frazzled, that website is horribly biased and even admits it:

[qoute]
No apologies are necessary for the "one-sidedness" of the Museum's focus. A movement that deliberately kills millions of innocent people can possess only one side.

ChaosDave wrote:
Of course we are responsible for what the government does. My point is that there is a perception that you can or should use government to shape society. This perception causes people to think that government is there to solve their/societies problems. This isn't true, government can't solve societies problems, it can only hide them or suppress them.

ChaosDave wrote:
Take Yugoslavia for example, the leftist government had near total control, redistributed wealth, used education in government run schools to try and solve the regions societal problems etc etc. They had decades to resolve these problems but what happened once the repression was lifted? The oldest societal problem in that region blew up into an ethnic war. My contention is that government is only there to provide infrastructure and to protect it's population.

Necros wrote:

budro wrote:Think about it - if you had a couple billion dollars what would you do with it?

I would probably buy one of those new laser beam planes that can fly around and make bad guys spontaneously combust from 50 miles away.

lord_blackfang wrote:Frazzled, that website is horribly biased and even admits it:

[qoute]
No apologies are necessary for the "one-sidedness" of the Museum's focus. A movement that deliberately kills millions of innocent people can possess only one side.

dogma wrote:

Well, the Fed pretty well dug us out of the Great Depression by acting as a lender of last resort. Sure, WWII was the primary force in that it leveled the playing field, but without the ability to print paper programs like lend-lease, as the primary mechanism by which debt was eliminated, would have been impossible.

In any case, off the assumption that government bureaucracy is inefficient, could you give me an example of a corporation which does not give in to excess waste? Or any organization, for that matter? Actually, just define what 'waste' entails.

Frazzled wrote:
Of course its biased. How could it not be? How can a sane individual not be biased when it comes to repression and mass murder? One can say "wow that was some bad " and move on in life, but one can't forget the past, especially when making comparisons to other societies that didn't do that. You're moral relativism argument doesn't hold.

ChaosDave wrote:

dogma wrote:

Well, the Fed pretty well dug us out of the Great Depression by acting as a lender of last resort. Sure, WWII was the primary force in that it leveled the playing field, but without the ability to print paper programs like lend-lease, as the primary mechanism by which debt was eliminated, would have been impossible.

In any case, off the assumption that government bureaucracy is inefficient, could you give me an example of a corporation which does not give in to excess waste? Or any organization, for that matter? Actually, just define what 'waste' entails.

Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

Clearly you have never worked in a large corporation. They are seething pits of waste and bureacracy.

Small companies where every penny counts are the most efficient in their use of resources.

I speak as someone who has worked in both kinds of companies.

ChaosDave wrote:Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:
Take Yugoslavia for example, the leftist government had near total control, redistributed wealth, used education in government run schools to try and solve the regions societal problems etc etc. They had decades to resolve these problems but what happened once the repression was lifted? The oldest societal problem in that region blew up into an ethnic war. My contention is that government is only there to provide infrastructure and to protect it's population.

That's not a valid comparison. Yugoslavia was an artificial construct based on the maintenance of Imperial control. Divide and suppress. America is no way comparable to that kind of a factional environment. Context is everything.

CorporateLogo wrote:Off topic for a moment, but I'd like to quote this man on Proposition 8:



IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS

if you vote yes on proposition 8 you are Garbage

Wraithlordmechanic wrote:What most people don't understand about proposition 8 is that the only thing it affects is a definition of marriage. Civil unions in California hold the same legal ramifications as marriage. Proposition 8 doesn't take any rights away from homosexuals it simply defines marriage (not civil unions) as between a man and a woman which is what it always was.

p.s. This is way off topic and I hope this doesn't lead to threadocide

CorporateLogo wrote:Off topic for a moment, but I'd like to quote man on Proposition 8:

IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS

if you vote yes on proposition 8 you are Garbage

ChaosDave wrote:


Ahh yes, the "tolerant left" showing it's intolerance.

ender502 wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:


Ahh yes, the "tolerant left" showing it's intolerance.

Don't be absurd. Do you actually believe one person acts as the mouthpiece for all liberals? If that is the case I think the grand wizard of the KKK should be the mouthpiece for all republicans.

Sound fair? Good.

ender502

ender502 wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:


Ahh yes, the "tolerant left" showing it's intolerance.

Don't be absurd. Do you actually believe one person acts as the mouthpiece for all liberals? If that is the case I think the grand wizard of the KKK should be the mouthpiece for all republicans.

Sound fair? Good.

ender502

“Founded in 1866 as a Tennessee social club, the Ku Klux Klan spread into nearly every Southern state, launching a ‘reign of terror‘ against Republican leaders black and white.” Page 184 of his book contains the definitive statements: “In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy. It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.”

Participation in the Ku Klux Klan
Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was twenty four in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.[2]

According to Byrd, a Klan official told him, "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd later recalled, "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone

important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[2] Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.[2]

When Byrd was twenty eight years old, he wrote about the 1945 racial integration of the military to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore Bilbo:

I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

—Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944 [2][6]

djones520 wrote:
The KKK was a organization founded by the democratic party to combat Republican attempts to desegregate this country. The Democratic party has fought kicking and screaming since the Emancipation Proclamation to hold African Americans back. All of this is well documented, in their terrorist acts, through their elected officials (like George Wallace), and the laws they've passed.

Open a history book sometime and read before making yourself look like an idiot.

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he’s campaigned on since 1964... and that’s fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster...

You start out in 1954 by saying, 'N@#$$r, N@#$$r, N@#$$r.' By 1968 you can't say 'N@#$$r' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.
And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me - because obviously sitting around saying, 'We want to cut this,' is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than 'N@#$$r, N@#$$r.'

Kilkrazy wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:

dogma wrote:

Well, the Fed pretty well dug us out of the Great Depression by acting as a lender of last resort. Sure, WWII was the primary force in that it leveled the playing field, but without the ability to print paper programs like lend-lease, as the primary mechanism by which debt was eliminated, would have been impossible.

In any case, off the assumption that government bureaucracy is inefficient, could you give me an example of a corporation which does not give in to excess waste? Or any organization, for that matter? Actually, just define what 'waste' entails.

Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

Clearly you have never worked in a large corporation. They are seething pits of waste and bureacracy.

Small companies where every penny counts are the most efficient in their use of resources.

I speak as someone who has worked in both kinds of companies.

ChaosDave wrote:
Actually corporations in a free market are far more efficient and less likely to "give in to excess waste" by the simple fact of competition. If they aren't efficient they fail and cease to exist. The only time this doesn't happen is when government intervenes and "bails out" a corporation. When that happens you usually see criminal charges and a restructuring to eliminate "excess waste" and increase efficiency. So in effect either way they are self correcting.

ChaosDave wrote:
Now a government bureaucracy is a different animal altogether. For starters it has no competition and no way to fail. If it runs into cost overruns the people end up paying for it in increased taxes or money being redirected to it from other places like infrastructure. In fact a government bureaucracy will only grow larger. A bureaucracy's very existence becomes to sustain itself and it's policies will adjust themselves to ensure that it survives and grows.

Kilkrazy wrote:The same is true of companies, which is why big companies tend to be inefficient.

For all the propaganda the executives would like people to believe, it is rare for one guy at the top to be able to have any real influence on hundreds and thousands of lower level staff.

ChaosDave wrote:
As for America not being comparable to that kind of a factional environment, I'm not so sure. We are definitely factional, maybe not as extreme but it's still there none the less. If you want proof go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt to any well populated public place and see what happens.

ChaosDave wrote:

Oh I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately that intolerance of differing opinions is much more wide spread and it grows everyday. Like I said a few posts up, if you don't believe me go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt in a well populated public place and see what happens.

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:

Oh I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately that intolerance of differing opinions is much more wide spread and it grows everyday. Like I said a few posts up, if you don't believe me go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt in a well populated public place and see what happens.

By wearing the shirt you invite intolerance on your self. It shows blind affiliation, not reasoned opinion. Tolerance isn't having you beliefs accepted. Tolerance is understanding that your beliefs can, will, and should be questioned.

CorporateLogo wrote:I make no apologies for the views expressed by rubbercat.net even if they are hilarious.

Also: lol at all the people who think I wrote that myself and didn't steal it off a website

JohnHwangDD wrote:

CorporateLogo wrote:I make no apologies for the views expressed by rubbercat.net even if they are hilarious.

Also: lol at all the people who think I wrote that myself and didn't steal it off a website

The fact that you chose to post it tells me plenty enough about you.

wyomingfox wrote:When it comes down to it, Politics is about expressing personal moral values whether they be of a social, economic, or ecological nature. Accordingly, the group that expresses thier values the loudest and the strongest are the ones to see thier values become Law.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

ChaosDave wrote:

Oh I would normally agree with you, but unfortunately that intolerance of differing opinions is much more wide spread and it grows everyday. Like I said a few posts up, if you don't believe me go to California and wear a "Yes on 8" t-shirt in a well populated public place and see what happens.

By wearing the shirt you invite intolerance on your self. It shows blind affiliation, not reasoned opinion. Tolerance isn't having you beliefs accepted. Tolerance is understanding that your beliefs can, will, and should be questioned.

By your own reasoning, wearing a "No on 8" would likewise invite intolerance via blind affiliation.

When it comes down to it, Politics is about expressing personal moral values whether they be of a social, economic, or ecological nature. Accordingly, the group that expresses thier values the loudest and the strongest are the ones to see thier values become Law.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see anything that prevents gays or lesbians from marrying. Legally, a gay man or lesbian woman can still marry someone of the opposite sex, so their rights aren't being infringed whatsoever.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Similarly, gays and non-gays are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex, so the rights are again being treated equally under the law.

There is NO discrimination in the law or the amendment.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now there may be disporportionate impact. But that's no different than noting how childless people overpay taxes that primarily support schools, or car-less people overpay taxes that fund roads.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Certainly, one can make a similar arguement for/against polygamy. If a man loves 2 women, and they love him, why can't he legally marry them both?

And given that families generally love one another, if a parent loves their child (of legally emancipable age), why can't they legally marry?

Clearly, those other civil "rights" are still not being properly supported, and anybody who argues against polygamy or incest must be some kind of evil monster...

Ozymandias wrote:

Grow up. Intolerance and Prejudice is wrong. If something is "sacred" then it shouldn't even be a political issue, it should be a Religious issue and that's between you and your god (with maybe your priest).

Ozy

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I don't see anything that prevents gays or lesbians from marrying. Legally, a gay man or lesbian woman can still marry someone of the opposite sex, so their rights aren't being infringed whatsoever.

Uh, what?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Similarly, gays and non-gays are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex, so the rights are again being treated equally under the law.

There is NO discrimination in the law or the amendment.

You're seriously trying to make this argument? That a group of people, who are defined by their romantic choices, are not having their rights infringed because they can always make different romantic choices? So what your saying, as I understand it, is that anyone who claims homosexuality can simply choose to be heterosexual?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Now there may be disporportionate impact. But that's no different than noting how childless people overpay taxes that primarily support schools, or car-less people overpay taxes that fund roads.

Actually, it is very different. Everyone pays those taxes. As it stands only homosexual people are barred from accessing the tax breaks inherent in marriage. There is significant difference between requirement and privilege.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Certainly, one can make a similar arguement for/against polygamy. If a man loves 2 women, and they love him, why can't he legally marry them both?

And given that families generally love one another, if a parent loves their child (of legally emancipable age), why can't they legally marry?

Clearly, those other civil "rights" are still not being properly supported, and anybody who argues against polygamy or incest must be some kind of evil monster...

Except there are other factors. Polygamy tends to be exploitative, and a similar stigma comes with incest.

wyomingfox wrote:
Human stigma is based on popular oppinion, which is notoriously fickle. Moreover, stastically, I haven't seen polygamy or incest to be any more exploitative than homosexuality. Also, while there is a chance that incest could lead to a malformed child, there is a greater chance that the child will be born healthy. Accordingly, why should these groups, which are considered aborant behaviour by those who support homosexuality, be espoused anyless than homosexuality.

Incest, in so far as JohnHwangDD raised it (parent to child) is predisposed to exploitation in that one partner in the agreement is instrumental in the other's formation of free will.

Polygamy has a long history of exploitative tendencies for similar reasons; as it tends to feature the marriage of an older man to multiple woman under the age of consent. It does not have to be a negative relationship, but then neither does the one between a prostitute and her pimp.

Moreover, a polygamist can still be married and receive the same rights as any other married couple; there is no bonus in the tax code for having more than one spouse.

Either way, there is a profound difference between popular opinion and human stigma. The vast majority of the country disapproves of the Bush Presidency, but there will still be a much larger portion that votes for the GOP ticket. Why? Because mythos (the driving force of stigma) often matters more than opinion, and they see the GOP as the party that benefits them; even if current evidence is strongly to the contrary.

dogma wrote:You're seriously trying to make this argument?

So what your saying, as I understand it, is that anyone who claims homosexuality can simply choose to be heterosexual?

dogma wrote:Actually, it is very different. Everyone pays those taxes. As it stands only homosexual people are barred from accessing the tax breaks inherent in marriage. There is significant difference between requirement and privilege.

dogma wrote:Except there are other factors. Polygamy tends to be exploitative, and a similar stigma comes with incest.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Well, you're doing a terrible job at trying to refute it.

No, I'm saying that homos have the same legal right as heteros to marry someone of the opposite sex, and that right is not infringed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
No, they aren't. If they want to gain the benefits, they can marry someone of the opposite sex and gain them, just like anyone else.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

wyomingfox wrote:
In that case yes, but that represents only a small % of incest which is usually cousin to cousin, thus lacking such a predisposition.

wyomingfox wrote:
What are we talking about here historical or modern? Up until the last 300 years, the age of consent for both men and women was considered to be at adolescents, which in general put women at the age of 12. As for modern, the actual cases in which a polygamist marries a woman under the age of consent is in the minority. Moreover, underaged marriage is regulated by a separate law.

wyomingfox wrote:
Homosexuals want the term "marriage" to apply to thier relationships. This is a sacred principle to them that they desire. Moreover, they want there behaviors to be viewed as normal. Actually, it is more than just that; they want people to stop saying that thier behavior is abnormal. This is what they are fighting so feverish for. Getting tax rights? That is just a bonus.

wyomingfox wrote:
Stigma is oppinion. You see there are three types of people who are voting for McCain. One group is voting because they actually liked Bush's presendency and think McCain is the closest canidate to another 4 years. The other group is voting because they see McCain as being different than Bush in several areas that they opposed, while similar in areas they supported. The third group is voting because they feel (based on past voting records) that the democratic party in general will repress thier values, so they are willing to take the lesser of two evils.

Ahtman wrote:This thread seems like one where I could have been misconstrued (or overreacted) and gotten into a heated discussion. How did I miss it? Now I feel sad.

dogma wrote:Homosexuals define themselves by their preference of romantic partners. By saying that they can simply choose to marry a person of the opposite sex you are saying they can simply choose to forfeit that part of their identity. That is exactly the same as saying they can just choose to be straight.

dogma wrote:Under current marriage laws straight couples are granted a privileged status. In the past marriage tax-breaks were awarded because it was though that the traditional family was far and away the best environment for a child to grow up in; a balanced, and loving home. However if you want to make the case that it is simply a legal right, divorced from any emotional consideration, then there should be no reason for awarding the break at all.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given the sheer number of arranged marriages in the world, along with the divorce rate for romantic marriages, I can't say that the definition makes much difference. Given that a large portion of defining onself as human is one's ability to control one's animal instincts, yeah, people probably can choose to be straight. After all, you can't claim instinct as an excuse for rape.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, not all married couples enjoy a tax break. Many suffer a marriage penalty.

As a society, we choose those behaviors to reward, and those to discourage. Requiring marriage between a man and a woman seems reasonable, as does rewarding such behavior. That's rational.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You said it, not me. I simply say that homosexuality carries a stigma comparable to polygamy / incest.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Dogma wrote:
Except there are other factors. Polygamy tends to be exploitative, and a similar stigma comes with incest.

Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indeed, homosexuality historically has very low acceptance, like bestiality (ref. Leviticus).

Historically, polygamy is widely accepted and practiced. The Special Characters of the Bible invariably have multiple wives, and this is generally an aspirational sign of wealth and power. No stigma there!

Centurian99 wrote:

budro wrote:
The majority of american voters are much more moderate then either party would like them to be. But since the rabid left and right both raise more money and make more noise, that's what you hear about all the time. Which leads to choosing the lesser of two evils for the average voter.

Hey, it takes a certain amount of passion to stay involved in political matters. Which leads to the loudest voices being the most out there, generally.

Although I've always found the idea of the "average voter" to be somewhat laughable. It makes it easy for the Mainstream Media to pontificate, but I think it has very little to do with actually winning elections.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Given how much the Yes on 8 crowd also spent, it obviously means an awful lot to some very deep-pocketed people.

As for intolerance and prejudice, to compare gay marriage with civil rights makes a mockery of the civil rights movement. Gays have the same civil rights and restrictions as anyone else.

I don't see anything that prevents gays or lesbians from marrying. Legally, a gay man or lesbian woman can still marry someone of the opposite sex, so their rights aren't being infringed whatsoever.

Similarly, gays and non-gays are equally restricted from marrying someone of the same sex, so the rights are again being treated equally under the law.

There is NO discrimination in the law or the amendment.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:you can't claim instinct as an excuse for rape.

Because rape is predatory. Moreover, why should they choose to be straight? What benefit does that have to society?

dogma wrote:What makes the requirement rational, as specifically opposed to any other requirement?

dogma wrote:Nah, that isn't what you said.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Dogma wrote:a similar stigma comes with incest.

Nomoreso than inherent with homosexuality.

dogma wrote:Yea, I'm gonna add something else.
...
that sounds an awful lot like bigotry to me.

Ozymandias wrote:This is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen from you. So when it was illegal for Blacks and Whites to marry, that wasn't an infringement on their civil rights because they were free to marry someone of the same race?

And don't start with the slippery slope arguments. Those are fallacies for a reason.

Unfortunately, it looks like the majority of California is as anti-gay as you are, Prop 8 seems to have passed.

Ozymandias wrote:Haha, you called me a liberal. That's funny as I've been Republican and conservative my whole life. We called you bigoted because that's what you are (based on this and other posts I've read of yours). I have gays and lesbians in my life who I love and to deny them the right that my wife and I share is not only wrong, its shameful.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
:S Society functions most smoothly when we are all cogs in the machine.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I dunno, how about several *thousands* of years of history and codified law that we use as the basis for our Judeo-Christian-Puritan society?

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Once again, the Liberal descends into name-calling to shut down debate.

Well done, and true to form.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
The fact that you can't tell the difference between in-species "race" and cross-species gender reveals you to be far dumber.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
What's amusing is practically every single slippery slope argument related to social mores has come to pass. When welfare was first proposed, supporters said "oh, no, nobody would ever *stay* on welfare". But lo and behold, some people did.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
When welfare expanded benefits per-child, supporters said "oh, no, nobody on welfare would ever have more children". But lo and behold, people did.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
So the very notion that we wouldn't end up legalizing polygamy, incest, bestiality, NAMBLA, etc. is a total lie.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm actually shocked that you would suggest that the slipper slope is NOT a valid argument, given the wealth of evidence to the contrary. That you call facts "fallacies" is laughable.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
You seem to have this grossly mistaken notion that creation of new rights makes people anti-gay. Newsflash: Gays don't need any special laws. They're no more special than you or I. They can just follow the same laws as everyone else, with the same protections as everyone else. Equal treatment under the law and all that jazz.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
@dogma & Ozy:

You both seem to retreat to the standard Liberal argument that anybody who disagrees with you must be bigoted / homophobic / racist / sexist / X-ist in order to close "debate" and force your views on others.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
If that is where you want to take the "discussion", I will give a very simple and eloquent rejoinder:

you

I'm outta here.

Mannahnin wrote:Government is also there to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is why we’re a Republic. If the majority makes an unjust decision, a good system of laws gives the minority the opportunity to contest it. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example.

dogma wrote: You mean the same thousands of years that included the Greeks, Romans, and Persians? All of whom were tolerant of homosexuality? Conflating Western history with Christian history is a classic fallacy of the anti-gay crowd.

wyomingfox wrote:Great, tell that to 1.37 million "fetuses" every year that are "destroyed" in the US. Sorry but rule of the vocal majority is the Law of the US and unfortunately, the unborn have no opportunity to contest that.

wyomingfox wrote:Oh, and values = religion

wyomingfox wrote:religion => politics => law

wyomingfox wrote:Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, and values = religion => politics => law.

wyomingfox wrote:
Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

Ahtman wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Great, tell that to 1.37 million "fetuses" every year that are "destroyed" in the US. Sorry but rule of the vocal majority is the Law of the US and unfortunately, the unborn have no opportunity to contest that.

Fetuses aren't people, so they can't be a minority or a majority of anything. Rocks don't get much say either.

Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

wyomingfox wrote:Oh, and values = religion

Values never has, and never will, be the same thing as religion. If that were the history of religion would be very different then it actually is. You can have one w/o the other, both, or neither.

Nice but not true: "religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions". What you expressed are values that predicate your own religious beliefs.

wyomingfox wrote:religion => politics => law

That is the flow chart for Al Queda and doctor killers. Good company. If it was just three guys that agreed with you and one sheep looking longingly in to your eyes this might work, but it isn't that way. There are 300+ million Americans and if we use that flow chart then we'd all be dead already. A good deal of the world isn't a form of Christianity. Do you still want that flowchart if the first isn't Christianity? Or does that only work when you are in the immediate majority, like in the US.

It is a Flow chart for Marxist, Socialists, Athiests, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives, Gentiles, and Jews...and you. Doesn't matter that the majority of the world is or is not "that" religion. Seriously, where do you think laws come from. They are emposed values derived from a consensus of the majority which again is dictated by religious views. We would all be dead...funny... if the magority of religious views truely equaled kill all humans then you would be right...I am glad that you are wrong!

wyomingfox wrote:Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

How dense. You make a statement that you aren't allowed to make statements. You are freely expressing yourself right now.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, and values = religion => politics => law.

Values do not equate to religion. If that were true you would expect each person in a given faith to have almost identical values. This has never been the case. Ask any of the Catholic congregations that broke from the church after Benedict was elevated.

Similarly, religion does not have to lead into politics. You may like to believe that modern secularism is the result of atheist control of the political system, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is free to practice their religious beliefs so long as it does not impact the public good. It is a form of agnosticism, not atheism.

No I would expect each person to have slightly differnet values as each person has slightly differnet religious beliefs. Again " religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions".

wyomingfox wrote:
Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

Because their 'religious dogma' is based on a fact oriented approach to life in which proof dictates the search for faith, and not the other way around. People can believe whatever they want, so long as that belief does not compel them to restrict the ability of others to do the same.

Edit: misquote

Ahtman wrote:If I use bold for everything instead of reason does that make a flawed argument better?

wyomingfox wrote:

Ahtman wrote:If I use bold for everything instead of reason does that make a flawed argument better?

In your case...no

wyomingfox wrote:Actually I used bold so that people could distinguish what I wrote but go on...no wait, let me get my popcorn.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................OK now go on.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, and values = religion => politics => law.

Values do not equate to religion. If that were true you would expect each person in a given faith to have almost identical values. This has never been the case. Ask any of the Catholic congregations that broke from the church after Benedict was elevated.

No I would expect each person to have slightly differnet values as each person has slightly differnet religious beliefs. Again " religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions".

Similarly, religion does not have to lead into politics. You may like to believe that modern secularism is the result of atheist control of the political system, but that simply isn't the case. Everyone is free to practice their religious beliefs so long as it does not impact the public good. It is a form of agnosticism, not atheism.

Actually since religion is one's primary worldview that dictates one's thoughts and actions...then yes religion always leads into politics. Modern secularists which is composed of many people with divers religious backgrounds is not only comprised by athiests but also muslim and christian secularists who have differnet religious views than other Christian and Muslim counterparts.

wyomingfox wrote:
Why should only one side be free to politically express thier religious dogma in advocating those laws that adhere to thier beliefs?

Because their 'religious dogma' is based on a fact oriented approach to life in which proof dictates the search for faith, and not the other way around. People can believe whatever they want, so long as that belief does not compel them to restrict the ability of others to do the same.

Edit: misquote

wyomingfox wrote:[Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

wyomingfox wrote:
Nice but not true: "religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions". What you expressed are values that predicate your own religious beliefs.

wyomingfox wrote:
It is a Flow chart for Marxist, Socialists, Athiests, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives, Gentiles, and Jews...and you. Doesn't matter that the majority of the world is or is not "that" religion.

wyomingfox wrote:
Seriously, where do you think laws come from. They are emposed values derived from a consensus of the majority which again is dictated by religious views.

wyomingfox wrote:
We would all be dead...funny... if the magority of religious views truely equaled kill all humans then you would be right...I am glad that you are wrong!

wyomingfox wrote:
Really, I think dense is one who has some notion that somehow ones religion can be divorced from politics and uses that arguement as a means to silence Theocons. The person who says this is clearly excersizing his religious beliefs to suppress the religious beliefs of others in the political realm.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

Considering our only histories of the time were written by, and spoke only of, the ruling class. You'll pardon me if I don't believe you.

wyomingfox wrote:
No I would expect each person to have slightly differnet values as each person has slightly differnet religious beliefs. Again " religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions".

wyomingfox wrote:Actually since religion is one's primary worldview that dictates one's thoughts and actions...then yes religion always leads into politics. Modern secularists which is composed of many people with divers religious backgrounds is not only comprised by athiests but also muslim and christian secularists who have differnet religious views than other Christian and Muslim counterparts.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

Considering our only histories of the time were written by, and spoke only of, the ruling class. You'll pardon me if I don't believe you.

Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

wyomingfox wrote:Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:[Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

Are they human? Can you define human? What makes a human different from any other animal?

Sequences of DNA

wyomingfox wrote:
Nice but not true: "religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions". What you expressed are values that predicate your own religious beliefs.

Religion refers to one's primary means of engaging with the possibility of the supernatural. In so far as the supernatural is simply that which is beyond current understanding. When that method of engagement begins to prevent the acquisition of new knowledge it is no longer religion, but delusion.

That is because you use a very narrow definition of Religion where as socialogists and anthropogists who study such phenomena view it in much broader terms:

"Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[7] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions."

wyomingfox wrote:
It is a Flow chart for Marxist, Socialists, Athiests, Muslims, Liberals, Conservatives, Gentiles, and Jews...and you. Doesn't matter that the majority of the world is or is not "that" religion.

No, it really isn't. The fact that you keep returning to the point simply proves mine.

No it really just shows your own religious worldview.

wyomingfox wrote:
Seriously, where do you think laws come from. They are emposed values derived from a consensus of the majority which again is dictated by religious views.

Sorry, no. Religion is an emergent property of the natural world. We derive it from experience as a way to make abstract predictions about the future. However, when you selectively manipulate experience, as the present tense of future, so as to affirm your religious conclusion you are exercising forced delusion. When this occurs on a societal level it is call oppression.

Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

wyomingfox wrote:
We would all be dead...funny... if the magority of religious views truely equaled kill all humans then you would be right...I am glad that you are wrong!

Well, actually, majority of religious views feature some form of evangelism. This is frequently interpreted as a means of justifying coercive tactics, and legislative oppression. And it is only those religions which place themselves into the political sphere in any kind of significant sense.

Oh, like Stalinism

wyomingfox wrote:
Really, I think dense is one who has some notion that somehow ones religion can be divorced from politics and uses that arguement as a means to silence Theocons. The person who says this is clearly excersizing his religious beliefs to suppress the religious beliefs of others in the political realm.

Nope. All such a person would be doing is pointing out that there is a distinct difference between restricting right, because you're religion calls for it, and permitting right, because your religion calls for it. Just because you have institutionalized bigotry does not make it more acceptable.

Ahtman wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

Oh you don't want that. No I mean it, everything you have said shows that you really do not want that. You want your personnel views to determine the laws of the land, ergo, you don't want others to believe and act how they want (voting being an action), you want them, at least, to act like they believe and act in a way according with your standard, based on one ideological branch of a religion.

Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Actually commonality with homosexuality in each of these cultures was primarily exhibbited in the ruling class and wealthy elite. It was not a commonly accepted practice amoungst the working class. This is also a common falacy associated with polygammy in which sides often point to a long running history of polygammy across cultures. However, again, polygammy was largely exhibbited only in the ruling class and the wealthy elite. It was not a common occurance amoungst the majority of the population that construed the working class.

Considering our only histories of the time were written by, and spoke only of, the ruling class. You'll pardon me if I don't believe you.

Feel free to believe and vote how you want.

Feel free to concoct evidence for untenable positions. It is your right to delude yourself, just as it is my right deride that action.

Ahtman wrote:

Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

Since when do you speak for two separate and enormous disciplines? I've heard experts in the field say what Dogma has stated.

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like you did about polygamy and incest

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like you did about polygamy and incest

Concoct what?

Polygamy, as it is nominally practiced, forces multiple women to bind themselves to a single man who is not held by the same constraints. Other kinds of multiplicative relationships can, and do, exist under the nominal marriage code. Indeed, the idea of a balanced polygamist relationship is anathema to the idea of marriage as it is primarily about freedom of action amongst the relevant partners.

wyomingfox wrote:
Sequences of DNA

wyomingfox wrote:
That is because you use a very narrow definition of Religion where as socialogists and anthropogists who study such phenomena view it in much broader terms.

wyomingfox wrote:"Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.”[7] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions."

wyomingfox wrote:
No it really just shows your own religious worldview.

wyomingfox wrote:
Again socialogists and anthropologists would disagree with you.

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like Stalinism

wyomingfox wrote:
Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Oh, like you did about polygamy and incest

Concoct what?

Polygamy, as it is nominally practiced, forces multiple women to bind themselves to a single man who is not held by the same constraints. Other kinds of multiplicative relationships can, and do, exist under the nominal marriage code. Indeed, the idea of a balanced polygamist relationship is anathema to the idea of marriage as it is primarily about freedom of action amongst the relevant partners.

Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

The modern age of consent dude. Marriage at the age of 12 would still be considered predatory today.

wyomingfox wrote:
Also I said that the chance for genetic deviation in cousins was very minor. In fact a 2002 report in the Journal of Genetic Counseling, concluded that cousins can have children together without running much greater risk than a "normal" couple of their children having genetic abnormalities. Again, you misconstrued a statement in saying that incest does lead to abnormally high rates of genetic defects.

wyomingfox wrote:Pleasure rapping with you Dogma...been fun but really got to go

Oh and there is a rapidly growing religious group within Christians who do believe in DNA sequenses so sorry for not fitting into your perfect little box .

Frazzled wrote:I think a real big issue (and majorities of US people polled agree) is the other 1.4%.

Frazzled wrote:I also think this is a fine example of the moderate nature of the US population vs. pundits, fanboys of both parties, and politicians. We don't like abortion personally but generally want governemnt out of the issue, with minimal limiations: late term abortion being one of them. Its only the hard cores on both sides, that get gelled about it otherwise.

Mannahnin wrote:Exactly. There are defensible and coherent arguments against particular policies on abortion, and wyomingfox has come close to them.

He's blurred a couple of details, though. A hair left on the ground has the same DNA as I do, but it's not a person. A fetus shares more or fewer characteristics with a person depending on how far it has developed. For me, an abortion is much easier to defend before brain wave activity begins, which occurs roughly between 20-27 weeks into gestation. Considering that about 98.6% of abortions occur before 20 weeks, I think we're doing pretty well.

Fetuses aren't people, so they can't be a minority or a majority of anything. Rocks don't get much say either.

wyomingfox wrote:Fetuses are legal definition of any unborn child. So lets see they are human, comprised of living cells, possess nueral activity, can feel pain...ect.

DNA sequenses

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:To me, it's all about how it is presented.

Abortion as a form of contraception is of course wrong.

"The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

Kilkrazy wrote:That is because the true issue they have is about control of women, not about abortion and sex.

wyomingfox wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:That is because the true issue they have is about control of women, not about abortion and sex.

Well, seeing as there is a rather large # of women leaders in the pro-life movement, I think it probably is about abortion and sex.

...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Depends on how you define it as being used as Contraception.

If *no* precautions were taken at all, no johnnies, pill, cap, IUD, Morning After Pill, then I would personally frown upon an Abortion, as if they are that careless, have it adopted.

wyomingfox wrote:
Well again, an unfortunately high number of abortions are just that. Only 56% of abortions were performed by women who used concreceptives the month they got pregnant (unfortunaelty when you are talking millions of sexual encounters each year even small percentages of failure add up quickly :( ). The remaining 44% failed to use concraceptives the month they got pregnant.

Frazzled wrote:Thats a presumption MDG. Rational arguments can be made by parties on the other side for abortion, marriage, and a variety of issues. You're looking at it through a filter because often the strongest arguers on that side also have strong religious beliefs. I can see lots of sides to these arguments, and none of them have anything to do with religion.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Thats a presumption MDG. Rational arguments can be made by parties on the other side for abortion, marriage, and a variety of issues. You're looking at it through a filter because often the strongest arguers on that side also have strong religious beliefs. I can see lots of sides to these arguments, and none of them have anything to do with religion.

I think your confusing rational with logical. I can make a completely logical case for hating Jewish people, but that doesn't make it rational. Similarly, I can make a completely logical case for being against gay marriage, but that logic would have to rest on he idea that hetero couples were somehow deserving of additional privileges. something which is very much a modern (last 400-500 years) invention of the faithful. I love to play devil's advocate, but I also know a losing game when I see it.

Abortion is different. While I personally am not offended by it in the slightest, I can empathize with the desire to regulate it. That said, in the absence of an obviously rational choice (like gay marriage) it would seem that the best option will always be a permissive one.

Frazzled wrote:
Those are your words, not mine. People can make rational arguments on either side of most issues, without being bigots, nuts, cooks, or whatever you want to call them.

Frazzled wrote:Because thats not the only argument. Therefore its not bigotry. You're attempting to force a false dichotomy to win your argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm not sure if this is relevant but it seems related.

Jehovah's Witnesses forbid the use of blood transfusions to save their children from death after accidents.

Is there a case for intervention?

Frazzled wrote:Several points, off the top of my head. Proviso here I’m not going to argue the merits, I don’t care, and I’ve previously posted government should be out of it altogether.

1) History. I
Historically marriage was a property, inheritance, and child procreation. Property and inheritance are not issues, but children are. Studies have shown that a stable family unit of father/mother -with all other factors being equal-is better for children.

Frazzled wrote:
2) History II
Historically marriage was indeed between the sexes. While there were relationships, marriage itself has been generally reserved for that.

Frazzled wrote:
3) Slippery slope.
Been discussed.

Frazzled wrote:
4) Marriage is now effectively a religious title. Legislation is such that the rights and duties historically reserved for married may be obtained elsewhere.

Frazzled wrote:
None of these are from a bigot, or a religious context.

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Your point that Polygammy primarily involved relationships with women under the age of consent.

The modern age of consent dude. Marriage at the age of 12 would still be considered predatory today.

And a large # of monogomous relationships that occurred in those days would have been viewed the same way today. Differnet time, differnet standards. Oh and marriage at the age of 12 IS considered predatory and is illegal. And again, underage marriage is prohibitted by a separate law.

The earliest Western documents (in the form of literary works, art objects, as well as mythographic materials) concerning same-sex relationships are derived from ancient Greece. They depict a world in which relationships with women and relationships with youths were the essential foundation of a normal man's love life. Same-sex relationships were a social institution variously constructed over time and from one city to another. The formal practice, an erotic yet often restrained relationship between a free adult male and a free [non-slave] adolescent, was valued for its pedagogic benefits and as a means of population control, though occasionally blamed for causing disorder. Plato praised its benefits in his early writings,[38] but in his late works proposed its prohibition.[39]

In Ancient Rome the situation was reversed. Though the young male body remained a focus of male sexual attention, free boys were off limits as sexual partners.

Notwithstanding these regulations, taxes on brothels of boys [slaves] available for homosexual sex continued to be collected until the end of the reign of Anastasius I in 518.

Wyomingfox wrote: As for brain wave activity, it occurs much earlier

Margaret Sykes wrote:[The Bergstroms] found "electrical activity" in fetal brainstem cells from 10 weeks of pregnancy (56 days after fertilization) on, but that doesn't mean much. An EEG involves measuring varying electrical potentials across a dipole, or separated positive and negative charges. Any living cell has an electrical potential across its membrane, and any living structure is a dipole, which explains why people have been able to put electrodes on plants, hook them up to EEG machines, and get "evidence" that plants have feelings. But this has nothing to do with "brain waves," which are a nontechnical term for a particular kind of varying potentials produced by certain brain structures that don't even exist in an embryo and associated with consciousness and dreaming as well as the regulation of bodily functions.

The Bergstroms did not find electrical activity of a kind that had anything to do with "brain function" until 84 days (12 weeks) of gestation, or 70 days after conception. The activity then recorded was not in any way similar to what is seen on a normal EEG, which includes what people call "brain waves." Rather, the Bergstroms stimulated the fetal brain stem and were able to record random bursts of electrical activity which looked exactly like the bursts they got from the fetal leg muscles when they were stimulated.

Margaret Sykes wrote: When people, including physicians, talk about "brain waves" and "brain activity" they are referring to organized activity in the cortex. While no embryo or fetus has ever been found to have "brain waves," extensive EEG studies have been done on premature babies. A very good summary of their findings can be found in Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus," a review article (often cited by "pro-lifers" writing about fetal pain, but not about brain development) by K.J.S. Anand, a leading researcher on pain in newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM:

Functional maturity of the cerebral cortex is suggested by fetal and neonatal electroencephalographic patterns...First, intermittent electroencephalograpic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

There are reasons, based on the physics of the EEG, why this has to be so. Remember, an EEG involves measuring varying electrical potential across a dipole, or separated charges. To get scalp or surface potentials from the cortex requires three things: neurons, dendrites, and axons, with synapses between them. Since these requirements are not present in the human cortex before 20-24 weeks of gestation, it is not possible to record "brain waves" prior to 20-24 weeks. Period. End of story. Scientists do not attempt to find electrocortical activity in embryos and fetuses because they know more about the physical structure of the developing human brain than they did in 1963.

Wyomingfox wrote: Well, seeing as there is a rather large # of women leaders in the pro-life movement, I think it probably is about abortion and sex.

wyomingfox wrote:
Moreover, if you had a problem with a supposed propensity (or majority) for Polygamists to have relationships with adolescent girls, then you should be similarily opposed to the common greek expression of homosexual love that was between a man and an adolescent (often refered to as "boy" love).

Mannahnin wrote:

Wyomingfox wrote: As for brain wave activity, it occurs much earlier

Can you quote your source for this? Sometimes people make claims of this based on taking remarks out of context from Dr. Hannibal Hamlin's 1964 speech "Life or Death by EEG.", but he drew his data from a Japanese study from 1951, and their results have not been replicated; more modern studies have found far different results. Bergstrom's "Development of EEG and unit electrical activity of the brain during ontogeny", for example, and Anand & Hickey’s “Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus”.

ABSTRACT

The human brainstem is fashioned around the 7th week of gestation and matures in a caudal to rostral arc thereby forming the medulla, pons, and midbrain. The medulla mediates arousal, breathing, heart rate, and gross movement of the body and head, and medullary functions appear prior to those of the pons which precede those of the midbrain. Hence, by the 9th gestational week the fetus will display spontaneous movements, one week later takes its first breath, and by the 25th week demonstrates stimulus-induced heart rate accelerations. As the pons, which is later to mature, mediates arousal, body movements, and vestibular and vibroacoustic perception, from around the 20th to 27th weeks the fetus responds with arousal and body movements to vibroacoustic and loud sounds delivered to the maternal abdomen. The midbrain inferior-auditory followed by the superior-visual colliculi is the last to mature, and in conjunction with the lower brainstem makes fine auditory discriminations, and reacts to sound with fetal heart rate (FHR) accelerations, head turning, and eye movements--around the 36th week. When aroused the fetus also reacts with reflexive movements, head turning, FHR accelerations, and may fall asleep and display rapid eye movements. Thus fetal-cognitive motor activity, including auditory discrimination, orienting, the wake-sleep cycle, FHRs, and defensive reactions, appear to be under the reflexive control of the brainstem which also appears capable of learning-related activity.

FETAL BRAIN-BEHAVIOR AND COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

It is now well established that the human fetus is capable of some degree of behavioral complexity. In fact, as early as the 9th week of gestation the fetus is able to spontaneously move the extremities, head, and trunk (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985). It has also been suggested that the near term fetus may be endowed with some degree of cognitive capability (e.g., Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994; Kisilevsky, Fearson & Muir, 1998). Cognition has been inferred based on alterations in fetal heart rate (FHR) and habituation to airborne sound (Kisilevsky & Muir, 1991), response-declines to vibroacoustic stimuli (Kisilevsky et al., 1998; Kuhlman, Burns, Depp, & Sabagha, 1988), and what appears to be neonatal preferences for the maternal voice as well as melodies and stories presented up to six weeks prior to birth (DeCasper & Fifer, 1980; DeCasper & Spence, 1986; DeCasper, Lecanuet, Busnel, Granier-Deferre & Maugeais, 1994; Lecanuet, Granier-Deferre, & Busnel, 1989).

As will be detailed below, the behavior of the fetus and newborn is likely a reflection of reflexive brainstem activities which are produced in the absence of forebrain-mediated affective or cognitive processing, i.e. thinking, reasoning, understanding, or true emotionality (Joseph, 1996a, 1999; Levene, 1993; Sroufe, 1996). It is the much slower to develop forebrain which generates higher order cognitive activity and purposeful behaviors, and which is responsible for the expression and experience of true emotions including pleasure, rage, fear and joy and the desire for social-emotional contact (Joseph, 1992, 1996ab, 1999; MacLean, 1990).

At birth and for the ensuing weeks, the forebrain is so immature that its influences are limited to signaling distress in reaction to hunger or thirst; a function of the immature hypothalamus (Joseph, 1982, 1992, 1999) in conjunction with the midbrain periaqueductal gray (e.g. Larson, Yajima, & Ko, 1994; Zhang, Davis, Bandler, & Carrive, 1994). Although various limbic nuclei become functionally mature over the course of the first several postnatal months and years (Benes, 1994; Joseph, 1992, 1999), the neocortex and lobes of the brain take well over seven, ten, and even thirty years to fully develop and myelinate (Blinkov & Glezer, 1968; Conel, 1939, 1941; Flechsig, 1901; Huttenlocher, 1990; Yakovlev & Lecours, 1967).

It is rather obvious that the neonate is able to scream and cry and can even slightly lift the corners of the mouth as if smiling. However, these do not appear to be true emotions (Sroufe, 1996; however, see Izard, 1991). In fact, smiling, as well as screaming and crying can be produced from brainstem stimulation even with complete forebrain transection or destruction (Larson et al., 1994; Zhang et al., 1994; reviewed in Joseph, 1996a). Hence, neonatal and premature infant "smiling" or distress reactions to noxious stimulation (e.g. heel lance) are also likely brainstem mediated, particularly in that they may be triggered in the absence of any obvious stimulus source and following forebrain destruction or lack of development (anencephaly). However, as brainstem maturation continues in a caudal-rostral arc (Debakan, 1970; Langworthy, 1937), at term and over the following weeks and months, the immature hypothalamus (which sits atop the midbrain), and thus the forebrain, increasingly contributes to and gains control over these behaviors (Joseph, 1992, 1999).

The progression in behavioral complexity that begins with spontaneous fetal movements and which culminates with presumed preferences for the sound of mother's voice, also appear to reflect maturational events taking place in the brainstem, followed by forebrain structures. Indeed, the brainstem is first fashioned around the 33rd day of gestation (Bayer, 1995; Marin-Padilla, 1988; Sidman & Rakic, 1982) and nearly completes its cycle of development and myelination around the 7th gestational month (Gilles, Leviton, & Dooling, 1983; Langworthy, 1937; Yakovlev & Lecours, 1967). However, in contrast to the forebrain, the brainstem is incapable of cognition such as reasoning, comprehension, or thought (Joseph, 1996c), but instead reflexively reacts to a variety of stimuli in an exceedingly complex, albeit stereotyped fashion (Blessing, 1997; Cohen, Rossignol & Gillner, 1988; Cowie, Smith, & Robinson,1994; Steriade & McCarley, 1990).

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Well again, an unfortunately high number of abortions are just that. Only 56% of abortions were performed by women who used concreceptives the month they got pregnant (unfortunaelty when you are talking millions of sexual encounters each year even small percentages of failure add up quickly :( ). The remaining 44% failed to use concraceptives the month they got pregnant.

Of course they very likely could not afford, or had no access to, contraceptives.

"Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception (cited by 33% and 32% of nonusers, respectively)."

wyomingfox wrote:

dogma wrote:

wyomingfox wrote:
Well again, an unfortunately high number of abortions are just that. Only 56% of abortions were performed by women who used concreceptives the month they got pregnant (unfortunaelty when you are talking millions of sexual encounters each year even small percentages of failure add up quickly :( ). The remaining 44% failed to use concraceptives the month they got pregnant.

Of course they very likely could not afford, or had no access to, contraceptives.

Well, that is one theory :S. The report actually concluded that it had more to do with lack of knowledge than availability [on a side note, condoms are pretty available, go into just about any gas station's bathroom and pay $0.25]:

"Forty-six percent of women had not used a contraceptive method in the month they conceived, mainly because of perceived low risk of pregnancy and concerns about contraception (cited by 33% and 32% of nonusers, respectively)."

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3429402.html

Contraceptive Nonusers [NOTE THE LAST PARAGRAPH]
The proportion of women having abortions who had not been using a contraceptive when they became pregnant varied across social and demographic subgroups from 37% to 54% (Table 2). Bivariate analyses reveal that adolescents and women aged 20-24 were significantly more likely than women aged 30 or older to be nonusers (47-50% vs. 44%). Decreases in income and education are associated with increased contraceptive nonuse: Women with family incomes below 300% of the federal poverty level were more likely than women with higher incomes not to be using a method of birth control in the month they became pregnant (45-52% vs. 40%), and women with less than a college degree were significantly more likely than college graduates to be nonusers (41-54% vs. 37%). Blacks, Hispanics and women of other races and ethnicities were more likely than whites to be nonusers (50-52% vs. 39%). Union status was barely associated with nonuse of contraception. Women who were the most likely to be nonusers were also the most likely never to have used a contraceptive method. For example, adolescents were more likely than women aged 30 or older to have never practiced contraception (12-19% vs. 7%).

We used logistic regression to determine if the associations between contraceptive nonuse and women's characteristics were independent of the impact of other characteristics (Table 2). In these analyses, adolescents were as likely as women aged 30 or older to have been using no method when they became pregnant; differences in nonuse by poverty status also disappeared.

malfred wrote:Anecdotally, withdrawal should work as a contraceptive 95% of the time. However, weak willed
males ultimately fail and make the percentage somewhere around 70%.

wyomingfox wrote:
We used logistic regression to determine if the associations between contraceptive nonuse and women's characteristics were independent of the impact of other characteristics (Table 2). In these analyses, adolescents were as likely as women aged 30 or older to have been using no method when they became pregnant; differences in nonuse by poverty status also disappeared.