News The World Can't Wait Drive Out the Bush Regime

[vanesch]

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?

The only reasons to outlaw something is when it is provoking harm to someone else, and that this harm is bigger than the suffering imposed by the outlawing.

 

[DM]

Visibly you cannot respect that stance in a woman who wants to get some cells out of her body, knowing that she will not cause any pain to any being, given that it doesn't even have a central nervous system.

I don't ACCEPT it. Not respect it. I may not like it; accept it, but ultimately I feel obliged to respect the stance of a woman that wishes to have an abortion. I will not disrespect a woman purely because she has different views on abortion, hence why I choose to respect it.

The problem with your opinion is that 1) it is forced upon others not sharing that opinion through a legal system

I'm not forcing my opinions upon others. This a major flaw in your point.

2) it is an opinion purely based upon a religious belief and has no generally acceptable scientific and ethical argumentation, independent of the belief system a person adheres to.

Again, not true. I have given you sufficient points to argue your views without the aid of religion.

 

[DM]

A body with a dead brain ? Of course.

Tell me, what should be done with this person.

BTW, calling an idea "ridiculous" is not an ad hominem attack. Saying that I find the statement that we are invaded by little green men from Mars ridiculous is not an ad hominem attack, and honestly, both statements (about rights for a single cell and green men from Mars) are, in my OPINION, on exactly the same level.

It creates an ad hominem environment. If you call somebody's views "ridiculous" and "outrageous", you are offending that person INDIRECTLY by attacking the subject. This is something I try to avoid as it preludes and feeds DIRECT insults; ad hominem attacks. All in all, I'm only preoccupied with the evolution of these indirect insults.

 

[DM]

The only reasons to outlaw something is when it is provoking harm to someone else

Smoking not only provokes but more importantly CAUSES immense harm to a smoker.

 

[vanesch]

ultimately I feel obliged to respect the stance of a woman that wishes to have an abortion. I will not disrespect a woman purely because she has different views on abortion, hence why I choose to respect it.

Ah, sorry then. As long as you don't want to impose any abortion laws, that's ok with me. (except that it escapes me then what it means to be anti-abortion ; hell, I will never have an abortion myself either !)

I'm not forcing my opinions upon others. This a major flaw in your point.

Sorry about that. It is strange to see someone who is against abortion but allows for it (?), but I can only encourage your point of view. But in the same way you argue against cloning, research on embryos etc... so there IS some legalese related to your opinion you are not trying to force upon someone else.

The problem I have with your point is then: why don't you simply say that it is your personal opinion, inspired by your faith, that a human soul is attached to a zygote and hence that in your religion it is wrong to kill something with a soul ? If it is nothing else but a personal opinion why not state it that way ?
Or do you really believe that there are reasons you can spell out for yourself that make that you think it is ethically and scientifically universally a valid point that it is wrong to kill a zygote ?

Again, not true. I have given you sufficient points to argue your views without the aid of religion.

No, you've STATED your opinions, and I think that the last version is:
"anything that can potentially devellop into a human being has human rights".
Apart from the problems that this grand principle will lead to when applying it to several situations, I would like to know why you take this point.

I mean, my point which is: "one should avoid human suffering" as a grand principle is - I would think - intuitively understandable. You don't want to suffer yourself (I presume), and because a general fairness principle (everybody equal for the law) it is understandable that nobody would like to suffer, so we should make laws that limit suffering.

But I don't see that point in "anything that can potentially evolve into a human being should have the right to do so". I find that starting point rather ad hoc or even up to a point self contradictory, because clearly you now use 2 DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of what is a human being: the first one is the one we agree upon, namely grown-up healthy human bodies with brain and all, and then 2) everything that can potentially devellop into this first kind of human being is also a human being.
So my question is: can we push that one step further: is everything that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into a human being" then also a human being ? (like egg cells and sperm ?)
Or even one step further: can everything that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into a human being also a human being ? (like the food that will turn into sperm)
Etc...

See, although there's no point arguing the FIRST step (a grown up healthy living human being), all the rest is open to argument. So it is not a grand principle that is intuitively acceptable that can be used as the STARTING POINT of an argument and thus needs a kind of justification.

THIS is the kind of reasoning that I wanted to see, and I'm pretty sure it cannot be provided without references to religion.

 

[vanesch]

Tell me, what should be done with this person.

Don't know, burried, or incinerated, or whatever...

 

[vanesch]

Smoking not only provokes but more importantly CAUSES immense harm to a smoker.

Yes, but it is his body, so he does with it what he wants. Although I can understand ONE reason to outlaw smoking on the basis of this, and that is if there is some social security including medical care for everybody. But even then I'd be against outlawing smoking. I'd rather opt for the person signing a declaration that he denies any right to social security, so that his risk behaviour isn't a burden for the rest of society.

 

[DM]

The problem I have with your point is then: why don't you simply say that it is your personal opinion, inspired by your faith, that a human soul is attached to a zygote and hence that in your religion it is wrong to kill something with a soul ?

The reason I have not stated what you are encouraging me to state, is purely because you wanted me to argue points WITHOUT the aid of religion. That is the one and ONLY reason, otherwise I can proudly say that the other half of my opinion is indeed inspired by my religion. Please note that "a human soul is attached to it" is not entirely true in my case. The whole process is condemned by me, not merely because it has a soul attached.

No, you've STATED your opinions, and I think that the last version is:
"anything that can potentially devellop into a human being has human rights".

Precisely but it doesn't mean it's inspired or based on religion.

So my question is: can we push that one step further: is everything that can potentially evolve into something that can potentially evolve into a human being" then also a human being ? (like egg cells and sperm ?)

Egg cells and sperm cells FERTILISED. The development (independent of religious beliefs) of a fertilised cell is in my PERSONAL OPINION a human being already.

Don't know, burried, or incinerated, or whatever...

Before its death.

 

[DM]

Although I can understand ONE reason to outlaw smoking on the basis of this, and that is if there is some social security including medical care for everybody. But even then I'd be against outlawing smoking. I'd rather opt for the person signing a declaration that he denies any right to social security, so that his risk behaviour isn't a burden for the rest of society.

I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke? And doesn't smoking also contribute to global warming?

 

[russ_watters]

Why shouldn't it be outlawed? What's your insight in its legality?

Smoking or abortion?

 

[Anttech]

I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke? And doesn't smoking also contribute to global warming?

Car exahaust fumes are far worse for you than 2nd hand smoke.. So if Smoking should become illegal in public so should cars? :-)

 

[DM]

Smoking or abortion?

Yes, smoking.

 

[DM]

Car exahaust fumes are far worse for you than 2nd hand smoke.. So if Smoking should become illegal in public so should cars? :-)

Well ok, it's a good argument but what about passive smoking?

 

[vanesch]

I'm personally more concerned about passive smoking and the effect it can have on my health. Why should I breath others' smoke?

I'm totally with you here, and I'm indeed for prohibition of smoking in confined public places where other people come, like trains, restaurants, public buildings and all that (let's enjoy this moment of agreement ). I hate having to smoke passively. But when it doesn't infringe upon other people's rights (such as the right not to have to inhale your smoke), I'd be against prohibiting smoking just to protect yourself from it.

 

[DM]

(let's enjoy this moment of agreement )

I agree

I'd be against prohibiting smoking just to protect yourself from it.

Oh dear. Why? Your health is in dire question, why should you respire others' smoke?

 

[vanesch]

The reason I have not stated what you are encouraging me to state, is purely because you wanted me to argue points WITHOUT the aid of religion. That is the one and ONLY reason, otherwise I can proudly say that the other half of my opinion is indeed inspired by my religion. Please note that "a human soul is attached to it" is not entirely true in my case. The whole process is condemned by me, not merely because it has a soul attached.

The reason I wanted an argument WITHOUT the aid of religion was in the case you wanted to advocate making LAWS about abortion - as do most anti-abortion advocates. In fact, I have difficulties considering someone like you who is strongly anti-abortion but claims to respect the decision of a woman who wants to abort, because then it escapes me what exactly it means to be anti-abortion. But I take your word for it that you do not want to impose your views upon someone else and I didn't consider that possibility, so I'm sorry about that.

Egg cells and sperms FERTILISED. The development (independent of religious beliefs) of a fertilised cell is in my PERSONAL OPINION a human being already.

Ok, I can accept that perfectly, as your personal opinion. As long as this is not forced upon someone else by the means of laws, that's fine with me.

Before its death.

A brain-dead person is already dead. Whether or not it is artifically breathing or not.

 

[vanesch]

Oh dear. Why? Your health is in dire question, why should you respire others' smoke?

No, you misunderstood me. I think one should be allowed to smoke ON THE CONDITION THAT IT DOESN'T HINDER ANYBODY ELSE. So if you're outside in the wind, 10 meters from the nearest person, I don't mind that you smoke. In all other cases, I don't want anybody to smoke near me either !

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, smoking.

Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.

The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.

I don't see that changing, either, because of the scientific arguments others are putting forward. Scientifically, there really isn't any basis for granting rights to a 1st term fetus - as you seem to agree, that's mostly a religious belief (and iirc, one based on a misunderstanding of physiology by the Roman Catholic Church). Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses. And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).

 

[Smurf]

Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.

The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.

Which is hugely hypocritical as there are many drugs that are illegal and smoking is just as if not more harmfull than all of these, at least with shrooms there's no such thing as a second hand trip.

Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses.

As there already are, 3rd trimester abortions are not allowed sometimes even under threat of death for the mother (at least in Canada). No one wants to change that, if you havn't gotten an abortion in the first THREE MONTHS frankly you're too stupid to deserve one.

And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).

In Canada that's only allowed if there is possible danger to the mother.

 

[vanesch]

Actually, it works out about the same for both, with the exception that smoking laws right now have two purposes: first is to protect people from second hand smoke (no such thing as a second hand abortion) and protect minors from making bad decisions about smoking by putting age limits on buying cigarettes (similar laws exist for abortion). But once you reach the age where the government considers you capable of making your own choices, it pretty much let's you for things that don't involve consequences for others. And abortion is not considered to have consequences for another person by the law.

The general philosophy of the laws is roughly the same though: smoking is not going to be outlawed entirely because it is seen as a personal choice regarding one's own body. For now, abortion is viewed by the law in the same way. Legally, rights begin at birth, not conception.

I don't see that changing, either, because of the scientific arguments others are putting forward. Scientifically, there really isn't any basis for granting rights to a 1st term fetus - as you seem to agree, that's mostly a religious belief (and iirc, one based on a misunderstanding of physiology by the Roman Catholic Church). Third term abortions are already pretty rare exactly because a 3rd term fetus is essenitally a fully-formed human - so I could see some rights being extended to 3rd term fetuses. And there is some grey in the 2nd term (not much though, because there is no coherent brain activity yet).

Hey Russ, I've been reading your post again and again,... and I can't find a single thing I do not agree with

 

[Smurf]

That's because he was mostly giving information on what is rather than presenting an opinion. (lucky, that was a close one )

 

[oldunion]

Good observations, the government doesn't make money, (well I guess literally it does) the private interests it serves make the money.

Is that why you say WW3 will be against fascism?

it will be against facism because it can't be against anything else. I don't think you could have a country vs country war anymore, no one would support it. So factions will go to war, and when that happens people will stand up to it or they will be suppressed-either way there will be facism and the victor of such a war will be determined when facism is no longer possible.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

it will be against facism because it can't be against anything else. I don't think you could have a country vs country war anymore, no one would support it. So factions will go to war, and when that happens people will stand up to it or they will be suppressed-either way there will be facism and the victor of such a war will be determined when facism is no longer possible.

How do you make an enemy of fascism but not a country? And how do you make fascism impossible?

 

[Smurf]

How do you make an enemy of fascism but not a country? And how do you make fascism impossible?

it's a matter of branding. Go look at some news papers from 1930's-40s. The headlines where all "War with Germany" that "War with Japan" this. now-a-days? "War on Terror", the "Communist threat" that. Since Vietnam, Iraq is the only military action that's been named after it's location (afghanistan is part of the war on terror) Guatemala was bombing communists, Nicuragua, Cuba, everything, all of them were causes, not countries. It's part of trying to remove the casualties from the idea of war, there are no casualties, there's collateral. There are no innocents, there are suspects.

(least I think that's what he means, that's what I think)

 

[oldunion]

You don't have people supporting the country 100 percent. So i say if someone attacked the usa, it wouldn't be against the people, but against its fascist government. In WW2 it was easy, kill the fascist nazis. But now, the usa is becoming more fascist in tendency and fascism will be the enemy, not the 260million people who live here.

As Smurf pointed out, its not country vs country, its government of country vs targets in another. When the usa declares war on terror, it isn't 260million people jumping over each other to get in fatigues and go stop terror; it is a select few who have targeted another select few. Citizens are only there to make money for the government, to serve in the army, and to accept their words as truth so no gets revolutionary ides.

I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.

 

[Smurf]

I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.

 

[outsider]

I swear every post i make just re-affirms the fear i have of the future.

Things are not looking brighter with the situation in the Gulf Coast... Since this incident, it appears that the house of cards is beginning to crumble with the polls showing less and less support of the war as well.

As much as I am for change, mass political unrest is also very scary...

When I saw George Sr. on tv talking about his advice to his son not to worry about the blame game, it was an indication that Jr. was focusing on that (to me anyway).

I can personally relate to the the immature and spoiled side of Jr. and what happens when guys like that when they are in a NO WIN situation is they get fed up, frustrated and flip the chess board. I'm going to stop criticizing him for a little while because there is work to be done and he needs to be doing it.

Political unrest in Malaysia & Phillippines has been going on for YEEEars... and it never seems to stop. These countries have extremely rich and extremely poor. I can definitely see the USA going in this direction... the middle ground is getting shaky and people are gambling like mad to get across the divide.

There needs to be great change.

 

[outsider]

Originally Posted by Skyhunter
Good observations, the government doesn't make money, (well I guess literally it does) the private interests it serves make the money.

if i held the keys to my friends future, but could not own anything but the key, then:

if my friend has a gun, I have protection...
if my friend has a car, I have transportation...
if my friend has money, I have power...

i don't have to have anything except the skeleton key and some associates. this is politics.

A community center has a budget... the chairman is supposed to request offers / proposals on all projects... if the chairman's friend is ABC, ABC sees all the competing proposals before making a proposal... then Mr. Chairman, who has pull in the boardroom can present his point of view in favor of ABC, and the ducks will line up to agree. To agree is to build a path towards getting appointed as Secretary or Treasurer in the future.

No one will admit to going along with this kind of voting as it makes them look like a knob, but I personally know that voting against is not the path to gaining support from other board members. People are spiteful and immature to remember that you didn't support their idea and so they don't support yours. I scratch your back, you scratch mine, so the saying goes.

 

[jammieg]

Finally someone who knows how to get things done!
Unfortunately he is the epitome of what most people are in America.

 

[pattylou]

I thought about starting a new thread but decided to post less conspicuously in this older one. I don't know if this should be split off or not.

I was surprised today when a friend told me that a full 50% of Americans think Bush should be impeached. 50%! I would have thought it would be closer to 20%.

I couldn't believe it. I googled: here it is:

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/3528

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House."

 

[Informal Logic]

Saw this bumper sticker yesterday: Can't wait for 2008

 

[alexandra]

My honest, considered opinion (based on thinking, reading and analysis) as an outsider looking in (I am not American): Bush (the Republicans) is not the problem. The Democrats would be no different. American imperialism (capitalism) is the problem. Just in case anyone was interested in this slant on the issues...

alex

 

[SOS2008]

Since this covers many thread topics (the need for checks and balance, Homeland Security, cronyism, Cheney vs. Powell, Bush's lack of international savvy, etc.), I am posting this here.

The following are excerpts from a talk given by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January. Originally from the Financial Times, updated by MSNBC Oct. 20, 2005, his talk focuses on the 1947 National Security Act:

...Now there are many critics who will say you cannot in our system of government force the executive branch to do something that it doesn't want to do. The framers of the 1947 act I don't think would agree with that.
----------
We need something like that today. Let me tell you why I say that. Decisions that send men and women to die, decisions that have the potential to send men and women to die, decisions that confront situations like natural disasters and cause needless death or cause people to suffer misery that they shouldn't have to suffer, domestic and international decisions, should not be made in a secret way.

That's a very, very provocative statement, I think. All my life I've been taught to guard the nation's secrets. All my life I have followed the rules. I've gone through my special background investigations and all the other things that you need to do and I understand that the nation's secrets need guarding.

But fundamental decisions about foreign policy should not be made in secret…
----------
When you cut the bureaucracy out of your decisions and then foist your decisions on us out of the blue on that bureaucracy, you can't expect that bureaucracy to carry your decision out very well and, furthermore, if you're not prepared to stop the feuding elements in that bureaucracy, as they carry out your decision, you're courting disaster.

And I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita and I could go on back, we haven't done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it some time again.

…Read in there what they say about the necessity of people to [UI background voice] tyranny or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do.

And you're talking about the potential for, I think, real dangerous times if we don't get our act together. Now, let me get a little more specific. This is where I'm sure the journalists will get their pens out. Almost everyone since the '47 act, with the exception, I think, of Eisenhower, has in some way or another, perterbated, flummoxed, twisted, drew evolutionary trends with, whatever, the national security decision-making process.

I mean, John Kennedy trusted his brother, who was Attorney General, made his brother Attorney General, probably far more than he should have. Richard Nixon, oh my God, took a position that was not even envisioned in the original framers of the act's minds, national security minds, that are not subject to confirmation by the Senate, advise and consent. Took that position and gave it to his Secretary of State, concentrating power in ways that still reverberate in this country.
----------
…Another one in my study of the act's implementation has so flummoxed the process as the present administration. What do I mean by that?

Remember what I said about the bureaucracy if it's going to implement your decisions having to participate in those decisions. And let me add one other dimension to that.
----------
The complexity of the crises that confront governments today are just unprecedented. At the same time, especially in America, but I submit to you that in Japan, in China and in a number of other countries soon to be probably the European Union, it's just as bad, if not in some ways worse.

…That doesn't mean you have to add a Department of Homeland Security with 70,000 disparate entities thrown under somebody in order to handle them. But it does mean that your bureaucracy has got to be staffed with good people and they've got to work together and they've got to work under leadership they trust and leadership that, on basic issues, they agree with.

And that if they don't agree, they can dissent and dissent and dissent. And if their dissent is such that they feel so passionate about it, they can resign and know why they're resigning. That is not the case today…

...the case that I saw for 4 plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations, [UI], changes to the national security [UI] process. What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense and [UI] on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.

Read George Packer's book The Assassin's [UI] if you haven't already. …if you want to read how the Cheney Rumsfeld cabal flummoxed the process, read that book. And, of course, there are other names in there, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas [UI], whom most of you probably know Tommy Frank said was stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that...

And yet, and yet, after the Secretary of State agrees to a $400 billion department, rather than a $30 billion department, having control, at least in the immediate post-war period in Iraq, this man is put in charge. Not only is he put in charge, he is given carte blanche to tell the State Department to go screw themselves in a closet somewhere. That's not making excuses for the State Department.

That's telling you how decisions were made and telling you how things got accomplished.

...[UI] tell you how many contractors who did billion dollars or so business with the Defense Department that we have in 1988 and how many do we have now. …They've got every Congressman, every Senator, they got it covered. …So you've got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you've got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9757219/

 

[Skyhunter]

Since this covers many thread topics (the need for checks and balance, Homeland Security, cronyism, Cheney vs. Powell, Bush's lack of international savvy, etc.), I am posting this here.
The following are excerpts from a talk given by Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, chief of staff to Mr Powell until last January. Originally from the Financial Times, updated by MSNBC Oct. 20, 2005, his talk focuses on the 1947 National Security Act:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9757219/

I guess he is next to have his character assassinated.

Although Rove and Libby are a little distracted ATM and not real anxious to leak classified info to smear someone.

I would like to hear Powell's take on his comments.