Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Is there any other place to talk?

I smell Troll and it smells bad.

Sorry to say this but I am not a troll I am a donkey-cave a genuine donkey-cave! What makes me different from a troll you ask?

Trolls don't have overinflated egos like I do. I also think that "trolling" is a bad 4chan meme that can go die in a fire.

*Edit*
4chan was a cool place one upon a time when EVERYBODY and their cat didn't know about it.

If you don't enjoy the thread Shadowbrand, I think there's an option that you're overlooking.

I don't quite catch ya.... :S

Does it involve slammin the ham?

*Edit*

Just for arguments sake Amaya.

Most people consider Black Sabbath the "first" Metal band and they are still widely respected.

Hell the only reason the British aren't invincible in the music industry is because of Dragonforce.

And BOC was formed in 1967. Black Sabbath was formed in 1968.

One year eh? They still didn't make as big of a impact though as Black Sabbath did though.

Fleetwood Mac should get a honorable mention however.

ITT: Internet Politicians howling past each other to infinity and beyond.

Shadowbrand wrote:Slarg were you bullied as a lad? Is that why you are so angry?

Can I.... hug you man?

No, but your sister can.

I couldn't resist mate.

Albatross wrote:The part I'm having difficulty with (and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here) is accepting that the Tea Party movement, which is explicitly 'anti-state', (in as much as the state has direct involvement the lives of it's citizens) would naturally lead to the kind of all-powerful state that fascism would lead to.

The Tea Party isn't anti-state, they are anti-liberal state. They're not anarchists, they don't want to see the state dissolved. They don't want liberals to have any power in the government, they want it to be organized only and entirely on their terms. But the only state intervention they are afraid of is intervention that affects them. It's entirely acceptable for the government to oppress others in their view. Not that any of them actually think that hard about any of this.

Consider abortion. The conservative movement is strongly pro-life, and wants to criminalize abortion. That would require far more government intervention in people's personal lives. The government would need to know who is pregnant and who doesn't deliver and why. It would be completely unenforceable without serious invasions into people's lives. So either the entire movement is based on complete bs, and none of these people are actually pro-life, or there is a serious disconnect going on between their limited government rhetoric and what they actually think they can accomplish.

This is why you can send these people into a tizzy by simply asking them HOW they would criminalize abortion, how that would be enforced and what the punishment would be. As soon as you point that out, the cognitive dissonance becomes unbearable, because there is no way to resolve the libertarian rhetoric with the conservative goals. This is because libertarianism is fundamentally a rejection of tradition. Tradition is fundamentally authoritarian. The further back one goes, the more authoritarian things become. The libertarian impulse is the one that dissolves that tradition, so embracing liberation to maintain tradition can never work.

That is what makes their position so laughable. They claim they want freedom, but we are more free now than at any time in history. We would not be more free if we dissolved the liberal state. Instead the very rich and powerful would be less constrained to act in a moral fashion, while the greater masses would suffer under more oppression. Because that's what it was like 100 years ago.

Also collectivism vs. individualism. The Tea party seems to skew towards the latter, fascism to the former. American conservatives have an almost pathologocal belief in self-determination and individualism.

And what I'm suggesting is that this is mostly rhetoric. It is borrowed liberal rhetoric, and it is fundamentally incompatible with conservative goals.

Consider gay rights. The gay rights movement is predictable in a society that values self-determination and individualism. As soon as Thomas Jefferson wrote "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." the changes wrought by feminism, the civil rights movement, and the gay rights movement became inevitable.

Jeremy Bentham, a contemporary of Jefferson's, was one of the first to argue for the decriminalization of sodomy. The Vinbdication of the Rights of Women, the first recognizable work of feminism in the English language, was published in 1792. Jefferson himself recognized that slavery was immoral and knew the government they had laid out would lead to abolition.

And yet, conservatism wants to preserve this tradition of homophobia, of denouncing homosexuality as immoral. But without the state force of sodomy laws to oppress gays and keep them in the closet, there is no way to stop gay people from joining women and other minorities as part of the democratic franchise. Either you use the state to oppress them, or they take a seat at the table. If one really believes in the virtue of self-determination and the value of individualism, then one logically has to support the right of gays to participate fully in society.

A government that doesn't respect that right is never going to be a government that respect individualism and self-determination. It's a paradox, you can't have a government that controls people's sexuality (and let's be honest, there is nothing quite so fundamental to a person's well-being as the healthy expression of their sexuality) and a government that respects people's freedom. The two are completely incompatible.

Now don't get me wrong, I wouldn't piss on Sarah Palin if she was on fire. I regard the Tea Party movement with a mix of disgust and snorting derision. But I don't think they're fascist, at least not in a doctrinal sense. But a baying mob, with a baying mob mentality?

That's the thing though: fascism isn't doctrinal. Fascism is emotional. Fascism isn't really an ideology, not in the way that say feminism or marxism is an ideology. Ideologies, even when they are divorced from reality, at least make sense internally. Fascism doesn't make any sense internally.

Fascism is also dishonest. Consider the Nazis. The National Socialists. Who rounded up and killed all the socialists, and who supported the existing capitalist class. There are two ways to interpret this. One is to believe that the Nazis really were socialists and to create some sort of elaborate explanation as to how that makes sense given their policy of disenfranchising the working class and killing socialists. The other is to note that the vague notion of "socialism" was very popular amongst the poorly educated working class, and that the fascists more likely borrowed some leftist rhetoric and words to appeal to the unsavvy masses. In short: they were lying. Because that's what fascist do. They lie. Constantly.

Abortion should only be allowed for rape victims.

And you're mistaken in thinking that all conservatives are anti homosexual rights. I honestly don't give a feth. Marriage is only what the individual makes it out to be. It's a joke now anyways, people getting divorced 2-3 times in their lifetime.

Amaya wrote:Abortion should only be allowed for rape victims.

I disagree. Rape is bad, probably the worst crime in the world, but why pass a fathers sins onto his son? Give the kid up for adoption, for all we know the kid may become the worlds greatest cop because of it.

Yes and put the mother through 9 months of hell carrying her assailant's child?

No good can come of either abortion or birth in that situation, but it's the only situation where abortion should be legal.

Aborting in other situations is no different then Spartans throwing babies into the wilderness.

The number of pregnancies from rapes, thank heaven, are pretty rare from my understanding. Also, since SOP for rape victims is a Plan B pill, there's even less of a chance of that happening.

I don't much care for the idea of abortion, but I don't think a lot of the women that get them do either.

It's an ugly result of living in an ugly world. It's such a matter of personal morality I choose not to vote based on that subject.

Amaya wrote:Yes and put the mother through 9 months of hell carrying her assailant's child?

No good can come of either abortion or birth in that situation, but it's the only situation where abortion should be legal.

Aborting in other situations is no different then Spartans throwing babies into the wilderness.

Isn't life supposed to be hell? For doesn't it take a journey through hell for people to truly appreciate heaven?

And yes, it is different. Spartans threw disfigured kids to the wilds, not every kid. Not that it was right, but it was different. At the time, disfigured kids just couldn't survive in Spartan Society. Again, it's not right, but it is different.

Monster Rain wrote:The number of pregnancies from rapes, thank heaven, are pretty rare from my understanding. Also, since SOP for rape victims is a Plan B pill, there's even less of a chance of that happening.

I don't much care for the idea of abortion, but I don't think a lot of the women that get them do either.

It's an ugly result of living in an ugly world. It's such a matter of personal morality I choose not to vote based on that subject.

It has nothing do with an ugly world. It's pretty simple. Don't do it without protection. Don't do it when you can get pregnant. Don't do it if you're afraid to have the kid.

But yes, punish the kid because you can't keep your junk in your pants or have an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet.

They don't want liberals to have any power in the government, they want it to be organized only and entirely on their terms.

As opposed to every other political movement? People want things done the way they think they should be done. That's not oppression, that's having an opinion.

The government would need to know who is pregnant and who doesn't deliver and why.

No they wouldn't... All they have to do is outlaw it, and then 99% of all legitimate healthcare providers would stop doing it. Certainly there would be people going to Canada, or backroom abortions. That's how it was before Roe.

This is why you can send these people into a tizzy by simply asking them HOW they would criminalize abortion

Ok, I assume I'm one of "these people," and I just told you, you make it illegal and healtcare providers will stop doing it. People generally will not do illegal things simply due to the inconvenience involved. Healthcare providers have a lot of paperwork and oversight relative to other businesses.

The punishment would be against the healthcare provider, and would be similar to any other punishment for carrying out unapproved medical procedures. Fines, censure, jail time, etc. It's not hard to figure out, and causes no tizzies.

And, for the record again, I'm pro-choice. I'm just saying, this whole notion that it can't be enforced is a fabrication.

All laws get broken, and not all offenders are caught. That doesn't invalidate the law. Banning abortion would vastly reduce the number of abortions carried out in the US. It's that simple. If you don't think abortions are a good thing, it makes sense.

It's a paradox, you can't have a government that controls people's sexuality (and let's be honest, there is nothing quite so fundamental to a person's well-being as the healthy expression of their sexuality) and a government that respects people's freedom.

You're so entrenched in the correctness of your own worldview that you don't even realize you've made judgements along the way.

You've decided that homosexuality is an acceptable form of sexuality. I happen to agree, but because I think about things, I understand that I've made that judgement.

I have also decided that pedophelia is unacceptable. I'm assuming you think the same. But that's really just a manifestation of people's sexuality, some people find children sexually arousing. We choose (rightly) to not respect these people's freedom.

The reason this matters, is because you've decided that the the DEFINITION of freedom includes respect for homosexual relationships, and any worldview which does not agree is the in the "anti-freedom" category.

Your argumentation is very much based around categorization and polarization. Because conservatives don't support gay marriage, they are in the "anti-freedom" category, and because all things are either black or white, that is a black category of evil and oppression.

This is perspective designed for a poltical gutter fight. It's not particularly illuminating or truthful.

The fact is, the conservative position is LESS respectful of gay freedoms. That much is absolutely true. But being LESS respectful in a given category does not make an ideology fundamentally incompatible with a generally freedom loving government.

You have shown a clearcut case where conservatives are less respectful of freedom. That's all. Leave it at that. Don't make it a categorical proof that conservative ideology is fundamentally incompatible with respect for any freedom. It's not that. You're not going to get a rhetorical "kill shot" every time you say something.

Fascism doesn't make any sense internally.

Why not?

Fascism is also dishonest. Consider the Nazis.

No it's not. The Nazis were dishonest. Fascism isn't inherantly dishonest. It often requires dishonesty to be implemented, but there's nothing fundamentally dishonest about it.

There's no need to demonize fascism falsely. It's a very poor ideology, it doesn't need to be misrepresented to be shown for a poor ideology.

Amaya wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:The number of pregnancies from rapes, thank heaven, are pretty rare from my understanding. Also, since SOP for rape victims is a Plan B pill, there's even less of a chance of that happening.

I don't much care for the idea of abortion, but I don't think a lot of the women that get them do either.

It's an ugly result of living in an ugly world. It's such a matter of personal morality I choose not to vote based on that subject.

It has nothing do with an ugly world. It's pretty simple. Don't do it without protection. Don't do it when you can get pregnant. Don't do it if you're afraid to have the kid.

But yes, punish the kid because you can't keep your junk in your pants or have an urge to spread your legs for every other guy you meet.

Meh. I'm not going to get into a theological debate but I think it goes a little deeper than that.

Though, on a superficial level, you have a point.

Like I said though, I don't base my voting on the issue. Mainly because it's a done deal. Politicians pander about it one way or the other, but Abortion is here to stay.

The only theological debate is whether or not the child is human or whatever BS pro-choice throws around now.

You can't legislate whether or not someone is human.

Amaya wrote:The only theological debate is whether or not the child is human or whatever BS pro-choice throws around now.

You can't legislate whether or not someone is human.

I wasn't talking about the theology of Abortion, I was talking about it being an ugly world.

I think they're human.

Yeah, actually, you can. In fact it was done all the way up until emancipation. Its still done, implicitly, given the differentiation between dogs and people.

Don't pretend the line you're drawing are clear, it doesn't become your argument.

dogma wrote:Yeah, actually, you can. In fact it was done all the way up until emancipation. Its still done, implicitly, given the differentiation between dogs and people.

Don't pretend the line you're drawing are clear, it doesn't become your argument.

Really? Legislation made slaves inhuman?

We had to actually change it to make them human?

A little piece of paper is meaningless and it can never change the truth.

In any case, legislating the destruction of humans has a long and honored tradition.

@dogma

However some humans do still hump legs.

Orkeosaurus wrote:In any case, legislating the destruction of humans has a long and honored tradition.

Yes, it does.

Amaya wrote:
Really? Legislation made slaves inhuman?

We had to actually change it to make them human?

A little piece of paper is meaningless and it can never change the truth.

Unfortunately we ascribe meaning to little pieces of paper. Note all the furor over the Constitution, the Bible, the Koran, and every other key document in human history.

Papers mean things. Words mean things. Social practicum means things. The fac that you disagree might be noble, and even illustrative, but it doesn't remove the meaning from the documents in question.

No one cares about whether or not you believe person X has rights. They care about whether or not they believe person X has rights, and their belief is often compelled by institutional (documented) statements.

I mean this soley as a way to lead up to my point, I am not trying to insult you.

Amaya, how many friends do you have?

On this site? None. And I don't find much reason to friend people that I will probably never meet.

In real life? Many. It's really simple, don't talk politics to people you know get pissed off about it. The only friends I have that I very, very, VERY, rarely discuss politics with agree with me on abortion.

Amaya wrote:In real life? Many. It's really simple, don't talk politics to people you know get pissed off about it. The only friends I have that I very, very, VERY, rarely discuss politics with agree with me on abortion.

But would they agree with you on Abortion if Abortion had been legal.... how-ever-old odd some years ago and their parents decided they didn't want them?

What? I'm against abortion.