In case there was any doubt, Sarah Palin is bat shit crazy. - Page 37 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-18-2009, 09:28 PM   #541
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AliEnvy View Post
Womanizer Pokoyo
If you're trying to say I'm a womanizer well I can't keep up with this guy:





__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 09:33 PM   #542
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 05:31 PM
I just felt this outrageous thread would not be complete without a little cartoonish Britney. Layer upon layer of metaphor there.

Also it makes me laugh in a wish-I-was-stoned-watching-this kind of way.

Parents familiar with Pocoyo know what I'm talking about lol.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 09:34 PM   #543
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
If black people and women can reason as well as a (white) man (because it can be witnessed) then they should not be treated less than (white) men. The arguments of racists and sexists would be to look at them as inferior intellectually which there is no evidence of.
The whole premise of this argument is flawed, because men who are intellectually superior do not have more rights than men who are intellectually inferior, in the first place. When have you heard of a man with an IQ of 95 having fewer rights than a man with an IQ of 130? Therefore, the argument that women and minorities were discriminated by against by racists and sexists because of their presumed lack of intellectual prowess, and that they slowly gained equal rights because racists and sexists discovered over time that they were wrong is inaccurate.
__________________
VintagePunk is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 09:36 PM   #544
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I'm certainly not saying you have to be silent. The left is right on somethings and they can compete in the realm of ideas just like anyone else. When they screw up the right can be overly judgmental and the left can be utopian.
Give me one social issue they are correct about or have been correct about...


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's not nonsense. Dreaming may not be the best term, but mental projections about what makes a better world doesn't always conform to reality.
I don't mentally project that all humans are created equal I just know it. I'm sorry that you don't.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Right so we agree except you don't like my use of the word science. Is induction, or reason better? Philosophical ideas can build on themselves as well.
You're correct in that I don't like your term, but it's not only that, each issue occurs by different means and I think that is something you are simplifying too much.

Since we've been using the examples of African Americans and women, let's stick with that.

Both were long and slow processeses, both still going. But the process was completely different for both, one got much bloodier than the other and in some ways I think the woman issue is still much further behind than the black white issue.

But the whole point I've been trying to make is that they both didn't come about by presenting "evidence" and seeing what happened. And the whole time you were trying to give legitimacy to the opposing sides for which they should never get. You wouldn't give legitimacy to the Nazis, so why try and give legitimacy to those that opposed these issues.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 09:38 PM   #545
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I don't agree with your premise as to how we arrived at equal rights for women and blacks, but I'll go along with it for a second: are you okay with it having taken hundreds of years to arrive at those conclusions? Should gays be okay with potentially waiting another hundred years until the rest of us can gather sufficient "evidence" to convince us they deserve equal treatment, too?
Well I live in a country that has already done that under conservatives who pretty much gave up fighting it because it was a losing battle. This happened because the population moved on so politicians had to move on. If you can convince the public in the U.S. to tolerate gay marriage Republicans will want to get elected and move in that direction to get votes.

I don't know of a better system than democracy so I prefer 100 years (I don't think it will take that long) than removing democracy by overturning conservative votes. What's the alternative to slow moves? There's lots of bills that people would like to pass (look at all the special interest groups) and they are frustrated too. There are pro-life people who hate abortion and look at abortion at the same level of eugenics and want Roe v. Wade overturned. They think liberals are hypocritical in giving rights to everyone except fetuses.

The reality is that there is no meaning to life that we can see beyond what we attribute ourselves. So when people don't agree on their beliefs democracy seems to have been the best choice to arbitrate.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 09:45 PM   #546
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
The whole premise of this argument is flawed, because men who are intellectually superior do not have more rights than men who are intellectually inferior, in the first place. When have you heard of a man with an IQ of 95 having fewer rights than a man with an IQ of 130? Therefore, the argument that women and minorities were discriminated by against by racists and sexists because of their presumed lack of intellectual prowess, and that they slowly gained equal rights because racists and sexists discovered over time that they were wrong is inaccurate.
I'm meaning in general. You don't need a high IQ to be a citizen with inalienable rights. Some arguments in the past tried to make it like women were property of men and blacks were not even of a similar species. To them it would be like giving rights to an inanimate object or to a dog. Also I do agree that there were self-serving elements involved because upper classes (with special rights) of any social group benefit at the expense of slaves. With observation (induction) we can see that their assertions were wrong.

Boy this Palin thread has morphed.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 09:53 PM   #547
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I don't know of a better system than democracy so I prefer 100 years
Presumably then you think that it is undemocratic for the courts to uphold constitutional principles.

You are forgetting how the changes in Canada came about with respect to gay rights, and that the fight took some 20 years, and that it basically all happened in the courts.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:01 PM   #548
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 09:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post

I prefer 100 years
You wouldn't be singing this bullshit song if any of this directly affected you.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:07 PM   #549
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
Give me one social issue they are correct about or have been correct about...
I mentioned one before in another post. The government can't replace the family unit successfully.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
I don't mentally project that all humans are created equal I just know it. I'm sorry that you don't.
You know it because it's easy to induce. So I'm using "induce" instead of "science" if that helps. I gave other examples of mental projections that went horribly wrong. Another example of far-fetched projects:

Great Leap Forward - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's okay to have mental projections but they need to be compared with past history of human nature and tested in someway. If one country does a new social policy then others can see it and compare if it's a successful idea or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
You're correct in that I don't like your term, but it's not only that, each issue occurs by different means and I think that is something you are simplifying too much.
Yeah but without past successes there wouldn't be the building blocks up to now. That's my main point oversimplified or no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
But the whole point I've been trying to make is that they both didn't come about by presenting "evidence" and seeing what happened. And the whole time you were trying to give legitimacy to the opposing sides for which they should never get. You wouldn't give legitimacy to the Nazis, so why try and give legitimacy to those that opposed these issues.
I wasn't legitimizing their point of view. It's that they exist and we have to engage with them and their ideas and refute them whether it's pleasant or not. I've argued with Christians (especially Mormons constantly knocking on the door) and they have their own agenda based on their mental projection of "God" so I leave it up to the voting booth. Civil war to me would come up if there wasn't enough tolerance that you could live your own life without being physically or financially attacked in some way. There are people who believe in creationism but they can't stop me from going to science class and reading science books so I try not to fret about them. To me they lost.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:09 PM   #550
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Well I live in a country that has already done that under conservatives who pretty much gave up fighting it because it was a losing battle. This happened because the population moved on so politicians had to move on.

I don't know of a better system than democracy so I prefer 100 years (I don't think it will take that long) than removing democracy by overturning conservative votes. What's the alternative to slow moves?
OK I just can't let this stand, because it's completely inaccurate and doesn't reflect reality or history at all.

First of all, the population didn't "move on" - at the time when Paul Martin submitted the reference to the Supreme Court, if you looked at the polls, they were really very close to 50-50 and were quite divided. If this had been an election issue, or could be put to a ballot a la referendum, you might have had a different outcome.

The conservative votes WERE essentially overturned by the courts. Discrimination against gays was eroded slowly by targeting individual rights like benefits, and so on, over a period of two decades. Most of this work was done by a Toronto-area corporate lawyer actually, who did it on a pro bono basis (very interesting woman, I've met her a couple of times).

It was the provincial courts which started overturning the opposite-sex requirement. The turning point was when the Ontario Court of Appeal (seen as the most influential appellate-level court in the nation after the SCC) overturned this requirement in Halpern. At that point, the Liberal government at the time basically decided not to fight it in the courts any longer and submitted the reference to the Supreme Court, which basically cemented the opposite-sex requirement as unconstitutional.

Stephen Harper's conservatives still tried to have a lame vote on it once they got into power and were defeated anyway.

But to somehow intimate that Canada is different and that the scientific process lead us to democratically install gay marriage is wrong and silly on top of it.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:12 PM   #551
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
You wouldn't be singing this bullshit song if any of this directly affected you.
I already asked this question. Is there something faster than democracy? I'm pretty skeptical of alternatives.

I also addressed that there are others who hate abortion and want it stopped NOW but they have to tolerate a democracy and court rulings. Abortion doctor killers are the example of people who want to make their own law instead of trying to convince people. There are people frustrated on both the left and right.

I tell you if I could answer these questions without dictatorship as a solution I would be a genius and write a book.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:14 PM   #552
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 12:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I already asked this question. Is there something faster than democracy?
Yeah, there is.

You people like to call it judicial activism and you're not fond of it.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:26 PM   #553
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,698
Local Time: 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I mentioned one before in another post. The government can't replace the family unit successfully.
Well that is not a right nor left issue, so try again and tell me just one, I dare you...


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
It's okay to have mental projections but they need to be compared with past history of human nature and tested in someway. If one country does a new social policy then others can see it and compare if it's a successful idea or not.
No, they don't. They don't need to be compared. Do you honestly think we needed to say well have other cultures worked without slaves?


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Yeah but without past successes there wouldn't be the building blocks up to now. That's my main point oversimplified or no.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay oversimplified. We're taught to hate, don't fool yourself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
I wasn't legitimizing their point of view. It's that they exist and we have to engage with them and their ideas and refute them whether it's pleasant or not.
Yes, this I agee, but I do think you give them subtle legitamicies , but that's neither here nor there...

I think Martha summarized it best... If it affected you, you would approach this entirely differently. We've talked about this before, you come off as someone who almost completely lacks empathy. I don't know you well enough to really say you do, but that's how you come off in 99% of the time. And I think because of that you approach social issues almost robotically. It might just be the nature of forum communication, I don't know, but that's how it is...
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:28 PM   #554
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
But to somehow intimate that Canada is different and that the scientific process lead us to democratically install gay marriage is wrong and silly on top of it.
They did a vote of representatives and lost yes. The conservatives are in power now and they've abandoned the subject.

Same-sex marriage in Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
The Conservative Party, led by Stephen Harper, won a minority government in the 2006 federal election. Harper had campaigned on the promise of holding a free vote on a motion regarding restoring the traditional definition of marriage. If the motion were to pass, the government would draft a bill to restore the "traditional" definition of marriage. This bill would then have to be passed by the House of Commons and the then Liberal-dominated Senate. The Senate traditionally does not vote against bills that have been approved by the House of Commons.

A news report from CTV on May 31, 2006, showed that a growing number of Conservatives were wary about re-opening the debate over same-sex marriage. One cabinet minister stated he just wanted the issue "to go away", while others including Chuck Strahl and Bill Casey were undecided, instead of directly opposed. Peter MacKay noted that not a single constituent had approached him on the issue, and Tory Cabinet Minister Conservative MP Loyola Hearn was against re-opening the debate. On June 2, 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper was asked by a reporter about the issue while he was in Montreal. He responded that the vote on whether or not to open up debate over same-sex marriage would take place sometime in the fall.

On December 6, 2006, the government brought in a motion asking if the issue of same-sex marriage should be re-opened to support the traditional definition of marriage. This motion was defeated the next day in a vote of 175 (nays) to 123 (yeas). Prime Minister Stephen Harper afterwards told reporters that he "[didn't] see reopening this question in the future".
Conservatives aren't by and large pro gay marriage. It's just not politically worth it for them. I think the landscape has changed for conservatives on the social end in the past few years. It's not like it used to be.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline  
Old 06-18-2009, 10:34 PM   #555
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 12:31 PM
That has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

By 2006, three years had elapsed since Halpern and the sky hadn't fallen just because we had gays and lesbians marry with dignity like the rest of us could. Therefore, the public sentiment had shifted from the divisiveness that was there previously.

But you insist that democracy is the fastest way and I have shown you more than once now that there was nothing inherently democratic about this. It was the most blatant sort of "judicial activism" which you presumably abhor since we have unelected members of the court basically running public policy. You haven't addressed this nor do I expect you to.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Closed Thread

Tags
sarah palin

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com