purpleoscar
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Womanizer Pokoyo
If you're trying to say I'm a womanizer well I can't keep up with this guy:
Womanizer Pokoyo
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.
Give me one social issue they are correct about or have been correct about...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.
I don't mentally project that all humans are created equal I just know it. I'm sorry that you don't.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.
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.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.
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?
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 don't know of a better system than democracy so I prefer 100 years
I prefer 100 years
Give me one social issue they are correct about or have been correct about...
I don't mentally project that all humans are created equal I just know it. I'm sorry that you don't.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Well that is not a right nor left issue, so try again and tell me just one, I dare you...I mentioned one before in another post. The government can't replace the family unit successfully.
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?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.
Yeah but without past successes there wouldn't be the building blocks up to now. That's my main point oversimplified or no.
Yes, this I agee, but I do think you give them subtle legitamicies , but that's neither here nor there...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.
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.
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".
Well that is not a right nor left issue, so try again and tell me just one, I dare you...
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?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay oversimplified. We're taught to hate, don't fool yourself.
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...
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.
Then you proved my point... thank you for being honest.I think it was a right and left issue but I'll concede that's the main one and that I can't think of any other ones.
Now back to what Martha said. I already posted before that Conservatives feel frustrated about abortion. If liberals don't give a crap then I'm sure conservatives could look at that as a lack of empathy. It's not just liberals who get in a funk over social issues.
Maybe people look like they have a lack of empathy precisely because they are focussed on their own agendas or just plainly disagree on issues.
Hmmmmm no, the strongest classical Greek influence on Marx, by far, was Epicureanism (his doctoral dissertation topic, in fact), which isn't at all a 'Platonic' school of thought. You might perhaps describe Hegel, one of Marx's strongest contemporary influences, as heavily influenced by Plato in his anti-empiricism (though Marx's other great contemporary philosophical influence, Feuerbach, was decidedly not anti-empiricist), but only in a far more general way than you're describing here.Yes but you are aware that Republic heavily influenced Karl Marx and that North Americans didn't practice this with their own children.
I think I'm not getting my point across very well here, so let me take one more stab at it, in an anecdotal way this time.I wasn't trying to assert that there was a laboratory based education campaign. I'm saying that you don't need a laboratory to witness Martin Luther King speak eloquently and have an understanding that he's a person like anyone else. So if 'scientific' is the wrong word then maybe inductive reasoning would be better...
martha said:You wouldn't be singing this bullshit song if any of this directly affected you.
Now back to what Martha said. I already posted before that Conservatives feel frustrated about abortion. If liberals don't give a crap then I'm sure conservatives could look at that as a lack of empathy. It's not just liberals who get in a funk over social issues.
Maybe people look like they have a lack of empathy precisely because they are focussed on their own agendas or just plainly disagree on issues.
but ultimately dismissing arguments on the basis of purely personal experience is short term emotionalism triumphing over rationality.
Frankly, no abortion-on-demand advocate is in a position to lecture anyone about human rights or empathy.
thusly, women are neither human, nor have rights, nor deserve empathy?
If they kill people for convenience sake then no.
Oh, so this thread is about abortion now?
Hey, you know what? Sex is totally fun. I'm going to go get myself knocked up just so I can have an abortion.
Check y'all later.
each situation may be different because of undue influence.