Capitalism or Socialism, Two Enemies Face Each Other in the Final Battle!!!

Which is it?


  • Total voters
    0
#26
#26
I would agree as well. There clearly needs to be a safety net. Unfortunately, entitlement programs get bloated to win political favor and we end up with wealth redistribution beyond the original intention. Likewise, I understand the need for regulated capitalism as opposed to pure capitalism.

Personal freedom is a tricky thing. The Constitution is there to protect basic rights but clearly many laws that restrict personal behavior are still Constitutional. I believe that we the people should be able to decide what the rules/laws are provided they are Constitutionally consistent.

Legislating morality is also a tricky thing and is usually attributed to the conservative side. However, it reaches to both sides. For example, I see the pro-abortion argument of "the child if born would lead a terrible life - they are better off if they were never born" as legislating morality. Likewise, "hate-crime" legislation appears to be legislating morality.
 
#31
#31
For example, I see the pro-abortion argument of "the child if born would lead a terrible life - they are better off if they were never born" as legislating morality. Likewise, "hate-crime" legislation appears to be legislating morality.

Can we stop using terms like "pro-abortion"? Who do you know who is "pro-abortion"? We don't say we're "pro-sticking chemicals in our body," but when you have cancer sometimes that's the best decision for you and everyone, and you should make that decision. And frankly, I don't your point above as a moral one - it sounds more like how an economist would argue that, in terms of what makes sense and what would produce the better result.

But anyway, my main point is about hate crimes. I don't see it as a moral issue of what's right and wrong but rather incentive to treat everyone fair - that we're all equal under the law, and if you pick on someone b/c of their religion or sexual orientation or geographic location, etc., you're going to pay the price. If someone perpetrated a hate crime against a friend or family member of yours, do you think you might want them to pay extra than those who commit indiscriminate crimes like robberies gone wrong?
 
#32
#32
Can we stop using terms like "pro-abortion"? Who do you know who is "pro-abortion"? We don't say we're "pro-sticking chemicals in our body," but when you have cancer sometimes that's the best decision for you and everyone, and you should make that decision. And frankly, I don't your point above as a moral one - it sounds more like how an economist would argue that, in terms of what makes sense and what would produce the better result.

But anyway, my main point is about hate crimes. I don't see it as a moral issue of what's right and wrong but rather incentive to treat everyone fair - that we're all equal under the law, and if you pick on someone b/c of their religion or sexual orientation or geographic location, etc., you're going to pay the price. If someone perpetrated a hate crime against a friend or family member of yours, do you think you might want them to pay extra than those who commit indiscriminate crimes like robberies gone wrong?


1)So you're comparing being pregnant to having cancer. Not really winning any votes there I would think.

2) Hate crimes are absurd. If someone committed a crime against one of my family members, I would want them to pay the full price that comes with the assault or murder or whatever. Why they did it is no concern to me and should have no bearing on the sentence.
 
#33
#33
That might have been the argument decades ago, but I highly doubt that politicians today are asking for more money for unused weapons in order to avoid engaging in conflict. We're talking about fat beyond fat here. We're so far ahead of everyone else, that we could cut back big-time and still have a military many times bigger and more powerful than the next closest country.

The real reason it continues is money and power, period. And it's waste, and it's corporate welfare. There, I said it.
+

So the discussions of our troops not having the all the equipment they need, even in a limited theatre, is just a strawman?
 
#34
#34
1)So you're comparing being pregnant to having cancer. Not really winning any votes there I would think.

2) Hate crimes are absurd. If someone committed a crime against one of my family members, I would want them to pay the full price that comes with the assault or murder or whatever. Why they did it is no concern to me and should have no bearing on the sentence.

1) Yes, I am comparing the two. A lot of people don't intend on getting pregnant. Some people are raped and get pregnant. Some people are ignorant and get pregnant. Some people are pregnant and need to abort to save their own lives. And a lot of people smoke their entire lives and get cancer. And how they deal with the consequences of that should be their decision, not the government's.

But my point was that a term like "pro-abortion" is misleading at best and a lie at worst.

And I'm not trying to win any votes. I'm exploring issues to try to find the truth.

2) On hate crimes, I can only try to put myself in the shoes of a victim of such a crime and consider the damage not just to me but to society. So I illustrate it the most personal way I can - what if my wife were accidentally shot and killed in a convenience store robbery? Now, what if a group of people specifically targeted her, kidnapped her, mutilated her body and burned it on a cross say, because she was a Christian, or because she was a Democrat, or because her parents were of Middle Eastern descent?

Yeah, I think a) I'd feel more anger at the second and that b) it would be more destructive to society and therefore deserve harsher punishment.

Do you?
 
#35
#35
+

So the discussions of our troops not having the all the equipment they need, even in a limited theatre, is just a strawman?

Don't know if that's the correct use of the term "straw man."

I think everyone agrees the troops don't (and haven't) had the correct equipment - but that's basic stuff we're talking about that should always be funded, not hundred-billion-dollar weapons systems that won't ever be used. If anything, funding the big, wasted stuff detracts from the basic necessities.

So what's your point?
 
#36
#36
Yeah, yeah, yeah....a baby is a parasite.....yada, yada, yada......

Let us get right down to the point.

The overwhelming numbers of abortions are not due to rape or incest.

Abortions however are placed in low income areas and target minorities.

Should that not be the issue?
 
#37
#37
2) On hate crimes, I can only try to put myself in the shoes of a victim of such a crime and consider the damage not just to me but to society. So I illustrate it the most personal way I can - what if my wife were accidentally shot and killed in a convenience store robbery? Now, what if a group of people specifically targeted her, kidnapped her, mutilated her body and burned it on a cross say, because she was a Christian, or because she was a Democrat, or because her parents were of Middle Eastern descent?

Yeah, I think a) I'd feel more anger at the second and that b) it would be more destructive to society and therefore deserve harsher punishment.

Do you?

No. As I said, legislating feelings is absurd. I don't care the reasoning behind the crime, commit a crime and pay the price. Don't really give a damn about the motivation behind the crime.
 
#38
#38
No. As I said, legislating feelings is absurd. I don't care the reasoning behind the crime, commit a crime and pay the price. Don't really give a damn about the motivation behind the crime.

Then I guess we disagree.
 
#39
#39
Yeah, yeah, yeah....a baby is a parasite.....yada, yada, yada......

Let us get right down to the point.

The overwhelming numbers of abortions are not due to rape or incest.

Abortions however are placed in low income areas and target minorities.

Should that not be the issue?

I don't think that should be the issue. To me, it's about limited government, and this is one area it should stay out of. The more the government prohibits abortion, the more it acts like the Chinese government, which mandates it sometimes. Either way, it's telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies.
 
#40
#40
I don't think that should be the issue. To me, it's about limited government, and this is one area it should stay out of. The more the government prohibits abortion, the more it acts like the Chinese government, which mandates it sometimes. Either way, it's telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies.

You have no problem with abortion clinics targeting minorities and people of low income?
 
#41
#41
capitalist economy with a strong constitutional and representative republic behind it.
 
#42
#42
You have no problem with abortion clinics targeting minorities and people of low income?

Abortion clinics target minorities? Are you saying they're out in the market trying to convince minorities and low income people to get abortions? I wouldn't think they'd need to drum up business.

Can you show me the proof (an article, a stat, etc.)?
 
#43
#43
Abortion clinics target minorities? Are you saying they're out in the market trying to convince minorities and low income people to get abortions? I wouldn't think they'd need to drum up business.

Can you show me the proof (an article, a stat, etc.)?

What do you want?

General locations of inner city abortion clinics?

Not sure what you are asking for?
 
#44
#44
What do you want?

General locations of inner city abortion clinics?

Not sure what you are asking for?

were you speaking hypothetically when you asked if I had a problem with abortion clinics targeting minorities and low income? I thought you were implying that they do, that they're out there trying to drum up business amongst minority and low income pops. I was just asking for proof that that's the case. Of course there will be abortion clinics in low income and minority areas, just like there should be clinics in other areas. But a concerted attempt to drum up business amongst these audiences? Nah.
 
#45
#45
were you speaking hypothetically when you asked if I had a problem with abortion clinics targeting minorities and low income? I thought you were implying that they do, that they're out there trying to drum up business amongst minority and low income pops. I was just asking for proof that that's the case. Of course there will be abortion clinics in low income and minority areas, just like there should be clinics in other areas. But a concerted attempt to drum up business amongst these audiences? Nah.

Gotcha............

:thumbsup:
 
#47
#47
Can we stop using terms like "pro-abortion"? Who do you know who is "pro-abortion"? We don't say we're "pro-sticking chemicals in our body," but when you have cancer sometimes that's the best decision for you and everyone, and you should make that decision. And frankly, I don't your point above as a moral one - it sounds more like how an economist would argue that, in terms of what makes sense and what would produce the better result.

But anyway, my main point is about hate crimes. I don't see it as a moral issue of what's right and wrong but rather incentive to treat everyone fair - that we're all equal under the law, and if you pick on someone b/c of their religion or sexual orientation or geographic location, etc., you're going to pay the price. If someone perpetrated a hate crime against a friend or family member of yours, do you think you might want them to pay extra than those who commit indiscriminate crimes like robberies gone wrong?

I meant to say pro-choice - my bad.

I would say it is legislating morality (the abortion argument) since it someone making a judgement about what someone else's life (the aborted) would be like and how that it wouldn't be a life worth living. This is a value judgement - the person is saying "I wouldn't want to live like that " but is projecting their view onto someone else. When you say it is an argument based on "what makes sense...what would produce a better result" this is based on your value system -- it is part of your morality; your view of right/wrong and ethical base for decision making. If you (or someone else if you don't feel this way) that the greater good is done by aborting vs. the threat of a painful life -- that is a personal morality-based view.

In other words, morality is not just the traditional (generally religious view).

Hate crimes are the same way - it is a moral position to say that people should treat everyone the same and not discriminate. When someone commits a crime against another based on race, religion, etc., it is a crime but it also violates this morality. To add penalties (beyond that for the crime) for violating this moral position is essentially legislating morality.

My bigger point is that the "legislating morality" claim is generally associated with social conservatives but there are many forms of legislating morality. Any time a law is based on the moral values that some group holds - it is essentially legislating morality. Our law codes are full of such laws.
 
#49
#49
I meant to say pro-choice - my bad.

I would say it is legislating morality (the abortion argument) since it someone making a judgement about what someone else's life (the aborted) would be like and how that it wouldn't be a life worth living. This is a value judgement - the person is saying "I wouldn't want to live like that " but is projecting their view onto someone else. When you say it is an argument based on "what makes sense...what would produce a better result" this is based on your value system -- it is part of your morality; your view of right/wrong and ethical base for decision making. If you (or someone else if you don't feel this way) that the greater good is done by aborting vs. the threat of a painful life -- that is a personal morality-based view.

In other words, morality is not just the traditional (generally religious view).

Hate crimes are the same way - it is a moral position to say that people should treat everyone the same and not discriminate. When someone commits a crime against another based on race, religion, etc., it is a crime but it also violates this morality. To add penalties (beyond that for the crime) for violating this moral position is essentially legislating morality.

A slip of the typing finger? Okay. When I was a journalist, we had to use the terms "abortion rights advocates" and "abortion rights opponents" to truly characterize the debate. Which is fair, b/c who's not "pro life"?

But tell me, how is it legislating morality to NOT legislate regarding abortions? How is it legislating morality to allow the individual to decide whether or not they should proceed with the pregnancy and birth? This debate seems to keep coming down to whether or not the embryo/fetus is a human being with the same rights as everyone else, and then, do their rights supercede the rights of the mother? The point is, neither I nor the government nor anyone else other than the mother (and arguably the father) should determine whether or not to abort a pregnancy. That is what I believe.

On hate crimes, I feel the same way about those as I do about other severe crimes - that not all crimes should be punished the same way, that motives play a part in that decision, and I think it's for the greater good to protect our individual liberties and identities (race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation...) by threat of the most severe punishment possible for attempting to destroy those identities.
 
#50
#50
A slip of the typing finger? Okay. When I was a journalist, we had to use the terms "abortion rights advocates" and "abortion rights opponents" to truly characterize the debate. Which is fair, b/c who's not "pro life"?

But tell me, how is it legislating morality to NOT legislate regarding abortions? How is it legislating morality to allow the individual to decide whether or not they should proceed with the pregnancy and birth? This debate seems to keep coming down to whether or not the embryo/fetus is a human being with the same rights as everyone else, and then, do their rights supercede the rights of the mother? The point is, neither I nor the government nor anyone else other than the mother (and arguably the father) should determine whether or not to abort a pregnancy. That is what I believe.

On hate crimes, I feel the same way about those as I do about other severe crimes - that not all crimes should be punished the same way, that motives play a part in that decision, and I think it's for the greater good to protect our individual liberties and identities (race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation...) by threat of the most severe punishment possible for attempting to destroy those identities.

WRT abortion, I was specifically referencing a common pro-choice argument - that the unborn child is being spared a "terrible life" so abortion is the better choice. That is a moral argument. Justifying a law based on that argument is in effect legislating morality.

Likewise, when you use terms such as "for the greater good to protect our individual liberties and identities" you are making a moral argument.

In both cases, I'm not commenting on whether the laws are good or bad. Rather, I'm just trying to point out that 2 laws that are more traditionally associated with a liberal viewpoint can also be viewed as legislating morality.
 

VN Store



Back
Top