Is secession the answer?

#26
#26
Grand Vol said:
It's nothing anyone should hope for, but Thomas Paine was correct that I'd rather fight in my time than have my children have to go through the horrors of war on that scale. I've already seen up close what sectarian warfare looks like and I have no desire for my children to witness it.
Click to expand...

Why are your children and your unborn grand or great-grandchildren more important/privileged than the children that are alive right now? If sectarian warfare occurs in the US, children will have to experience such warfare and either be killed or live with the horrors. Privileging your own children, and your own unborn future progeny, over the children of others seems, at best, equivalent to privileging your own life. But, there seem to be distinctions that I can argue for regarding my own life (access to my own consciousness, for example) that I cannot draw with regard to my own children.
 
#27
#27
therealUT said:
Why are your children and your unborn grand or great-grandchildren more important/privileged than the children that are alive right now? If sectarian warfare occurs in the US, children will have to experience such warfare and either be killed or live with the horrors. Privileging your own children, and your own unborn future progeny, over the children of others seems, at best, equivalent to privileging your own life. But, there seem to be distinctions that I can argue for regarding my own life (access to my own consciousness, for example) that I cannot draw with regard to my own children.
Click to expand...

I do believe you are twisting what I said in an attempt to say I'm being selfish about my own children as opposed to others. Maybe I'm not understanding your reply here.

As the saying goes, I would be willing to fight so my children do NOT have to fight the battles our generation would postpone. Which I personally believe should be the duty of any parent out there. And I think the unsaid implication in my post would be to fight so no other children have to and not just my own. Nobody wants their children to face the horrors of war and I certainly don't want mine (or implied any others) to face it either.

Don't try to twist my words around into something they are not.
 
#28
#28
Grand Vol said:
I do believe you are twisting what I said in an attempt to say I'm being selfish about my own children as opposed to others. Maybe I'm not understanding your reply here.

As the saying goes, I would be willing to fight so my children do NOT have to fight the battles our generation would postpone. Which I personally believe should be the duty of any parent out there. And I think the unsaid implication in my post would be to fight so no other children have to and not just my own. Nobody wants their children to face the horrors of war and I certainly don't want mine (or implied any others) to face it either.

Don't try to twist my words around into something they are not.
Click to expand...

I did not twist any words. The fact of the matter is that at the present moment, parents and their children exist in the United States. Thus, if you are arguing that it is better to fight now than to have your children fighting, you are privileging your own children, since the children of others would be fighting if the fight happened now.

Basically, if it is the duty of every parent out there to fight battles so their children will not have to fight them, then do we hold fifty-year old parents to their duty and enlist them to fight certain wars before enlisting their twenty-year old children?

Thomas Paine made some great arguments for certain things, but simply citing a maxim by Paine as if it has some special weight or value is worthless unless you can argue for that special weight or value. If you are privileging your own children, then Paine's maxim cannot be reduced to absurdity; if not, then it is easily reduced to absurdity. But, then again, if you are privileging your own children, then why not privilege yourself?

Further, if you privilege your own children above yourself, to you also privilege your children's children above yourself? How far does this go? Why should I give more weight to what will happen to my progeny 500 years in the future than I should give to what will happen to me now?
 
#31
#31
LibertyVol said:
The states have a right to secede from the union. I am not against it, but am afraid that we might end up with something worse than we have now.

If there is a government confiscation of fire arms or an active government persecution of certain religions or removal of free speech then I believe it is time to leave.
Click to expand...


You mean like Muslims or just non christians in general?

One of the hilariously ignorant things I still hear is "Obama wanted to swear in on the Koran" which, as we know is false, but even if it were true, is this truly a terrible thing? We've had one Mormon president before and the rest were all "christians" (mormon's are technically christians, but the large majority doesn't consider them from what I've seen in personal experiences). One of the big problems with our country is that we try and pretend we are free of religion, when in fact, one of the biggest voting factors and "policy" deciders is based entirely on a 3000 year old book that supports slavery and killing others who think differently than you do.

I don't support our current government in many things, but to act like we should secede (or in our current instance, shut down) because one side lost an election, which is really what this boils down to, That's just being immature and childish. Bush won two terms and was terrible, nobody threatened to secede like this when he screwed up education. Obama has done roughly the same, yet look at the outrage difference.

Course, we could blame that on social media as much as anything, but, details.
 
#33
#33
therealUT said:
I did not twist any words. The fact of the matter is that at the present moment, parents and their children exist in the United States. Thus, if you are arguing that it is better to fight now than to have your children fighting, you are privileging your own children, since the children of others would be fighting if the fight happened now.

Basically, if it is the duty of every parent out there to fight battles so their children will not have to fight them, then do we hold fifty-year old parents to their duty and enlist them to fight certain wars before enlisting their twenty-year old children?

Thomas Paine made some great arguments for certain things, but simply citing a maxim by Paine as if it has some special weight or value is worthless unless you can argue for that special weight or value. If you are privileging your own children, then Paine's maxim cannot be reduced to absurdity; if not, then it is easily reduced to absurdity. But, then again, if you are privileging your own children, then why not privilege yourself?

Further, if you privilege your own children above yourself, to you also privilege your children's children above yourself? How far does this go? Why should I give more weight to what will happen to my progeny 500 years in the future than I should give to what will happen to me now?
Click to expand...

You sound like one of those people who argue that since we will be dead in 50-70 years (or the apocalypse will come as many say) we shouldn't worry about finding alternative energy sources to oil. It's that kind of short sighted and selfish thinking that destroys civilizations. We need to set the world up for our next generation, not hold on to what little the current has, because whatever the current one is doing, it isn't working so well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1SmokinVol
#34
#34
Daloth said:
You mean like Muslims or just non christians in general?

One of the hilariously ignorant things I still hear is "Obama wanted to swear in on the Koran" which, as we know is false, but even if it were true, is this truly a terrible thing? We've had one Mormon president before and the rest were all "christians" (mormon's are technically christians, but the large majority doesn't consider them from what I've seen in personal experiences). One of the big problems with our country is that we try and pretend we are free of religion, when in fact, one of the biggest voting factors and "policy" deciders is based entirely on a 3000 year old book that supports slavery and killing others who think differently than you do.

I don't support our current government in many things, but to act like we should secede (or in our current instance, shut down) because one side lost an election, which is really what this boils down to, That's just being immature and childish. Bush won two terms and was terrible, nobody threatened to secede like this when he screwed up education. Obama has done roughly the same, yet look at the outrage difference.

Course, we could blame that on social media as much as anything, but, details.
Click to expand...

Did I miss a thousand years or something? Isn't only 2013AD?
 
#35
#35
Daloth said:
You sound like one of those people who argue that since we will be dead in 50-70 years (or the apocalypse will come as many say) we shouldn't worry about finding alternative energy sources to oil. It's that kind of short sighted and selfish thinking that destroys civilizations. We need to set the world up for our next generation, not hold on to what little the current has, because whatever the current one is doing, it isn't working so well.
Click to expand...

1. The bi-products of exploration often pay dividends to the living generations.

2. I care none about the future of civilization.

3. Sure I'm selfish, and I do not care.
 
#36
#36
therealUT said:
Further, if you privilege your own children above yourself, to you also privilege your children's children above yourself? How far does this go? Why should I give more weight to what will happen to my progeny 500 years in the future than I should give to what will happen to me now?
Click to expand...

Probably because I have a heart and am less self centered than you happen to appear to be from these words right here.

500 years is a little extreme. But children and grandchildren are certainly not off limits.
 
#37
#37
Grand Vol said:
Probably because I have a heart and am less self centered than you happen to appear to be from these words right here.

500 years is a little extreme. But children and grandchildren are certainly not off limits.
Click to expand...

Less self-centered, sure. But, since you and your heart only privilege your children and those you have some established contact with, you are still plenty self-centered. Ironically, though, you see such a term as an insult; I see it as praiseworthy.
 
#38
#38
therealUT said:
Ironically, though, you see such a term as an insult; I see it as praiseworthy.
Click to expand...

There's your first problem...

I would give an analogy of the importance of thinking of the well being of others up to and including the children I don't even know, but it would be a waste of time and a loss on you as you obviously just don't get it.

Maybe counseling for you would be in order?
 
#39
#39
Grand Vol said:
There's your first problem...

I would give an analogy of the importance of thinking of the well being of others up to and including the children I don't even know, but it would be a waste of time and a loss on you as you obviously just don't get it.

Maybe counseling for you would be in order?
Click to expand...

There are plenty of personal benefits and satisfactions from acting in ways that look altruistic. But, if one is so acting for those benefits, then they are not altruistic. Feel free to provide me with an ethics lesson, if you so choose.
 
#40
#40
therealUT said:
Feel free to provide me with an ethics lesson, if you so choose.
Click to expand...

Again, a waste of time as you will undoubtedly attempt to twist around the content of same and counter the meaning I put out. Because you've already done it twice by implying I am attempting to do things for only those I know or care about.

No thanks, learn your own ethics.
 
#41
#41
Grand Vol said:
Again, a waste of time as you will undoubtedly attempt to twist around the content of same and counter the meaning I put out. Because you've already done it twice by implying I am attempting to do things for only those I know or care about.

No thanks, learn your own ethics.
Click to expand...

Waste of your time or my time?
 
#43
#43
Secession would be quick but bloody. I do not believe the current military would support the current government. The secessionists are too well armed. The leftists are too peace loving.
 
#45
#45
82_VOL_83 said:
Secession would be quick but bloody. I do not believe the current military would support the current government. The secessionists are too well armed. The leftists are too peace loving.
Click to expand...

Actually, I believe the military would be split depending on the guarantees that were made. There was a time I would agreed with you, but lately?

I'd say probably 75-25 or 65-35 maybe in favor of separating. Depends on where they happen to be from and the specific orders they were given.
 
#49
#49
Daloth said:
You mean like Muslims or just non christians in general?

One of the hilariously ignorant things I still hear is "Obama wanted to swear in on the Koran" which, as we know is false, but even if it were true, is this truly a terrible thing? We've had one Mormon president before and the rest were all "christians" (mormon's are technically christians, but the large majority doesn't consider them from what I've seen in personal experiences). One of the big problems with our country is that we try and pretend we are free of religion, when in fact, one of the biggest voting factors and "policy" deciders is based entirely on a 3000 year old book that supports slavery and killing others who think differently than you do.

I don't support our current government in many things, but to act like we should secede (or in our current instance, shut down) because one side lost an election, which is really what this boils down to, That's just being immature and childish. Bush won two terms and was terrible, nobody threatened to secede like this when he screwed up education. Obama has done roughly the same, yet look at the outrage difference.

Course, we could blame that on social media as much as anything, but, details.
Click to expand...

I did not phrase that very well. I meant persecution of any religion. What you are saying is right. At present there really is no reason to secede. I was just mentioning the circumstances in which I think succession would be justified in my mind.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top