Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Banning the Bible to Get Out the Vote

By Wah in Op-Ed
Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 12:45:32 PM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

There have been some rumors floating around lately about an RNC ad that is being sent to people living in the Bible Belt about how 'liberals' want to "ban the Bible" (what that really means, I don't know, but there you have it).

It ain't a rumor folks, this is U.S. Presidential Campaign 2004, at its finest.


Ad copy:

This will be Arkansas....

....if you don't vote.

Our traditional values are under assault by Liberal politicians and their hand-picked activist judges.  They are using the courts to get around the Constitution to impose their radical agenda.

The Liberal agenda includes:

  • Removing 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.

  • Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent.

  • Overturning the ban on the hideous procedure known [to doctors as Dilate and Extract].

  • Allowing same-sex marriages.
Liberals want to impose their values on Arkansas.

Open this up if you want to stop them. [and impose your values on them first, via a Constitutional amendment that strips property rights from 2%-7%* of the American populace.  And all 50 states. -w]

[end copy]

--

BTW, it should be noted that three separate courts have already found the linguistically biased abortion act Un-Constitutional (one in S.F. (natch), N.Y. (natch) and Nebraska (huh?)) .  Somehow I doubt the people that this mailing will appeal to have noticed that this ban has been declared b.s from sea to shining sea, and even where the amber waves of grain, err, wave.

Also, speaking as a liberal who didn't get the memo on the agenda (liberals are notoriously independent...), I'll say this.

  1. Not a big deal. It was one divorced atheist using his kid to get back at his wife.  Not an issue.
  2. Personally, I have no problem with requiring parental or guardian consent before an underage woman is allowed to decide when to spawn.  See, we can compromise.
  3. Looks like the courts took care of that already.  Score one for the Constitution.
  4. Personally I prefer 'civil unions', as that linguistic variation tends to calm nerves rather than enflame them.  I'm still not sure how two guys (or gals) banging each other under the umbrella of a 'legal relationship' is somehow worse than them going at it without one.  Shouldn't ya'll be trying to reimpose the laws against sodomy (that the Supreme Court overturned), or have enough of you finally gotten blowjobs and realized the error of your ways?

And so the 2004 United States Presdiential Campaign continues..

Next up in the series of free election coverage: Safer than What?

*POMA number.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
More fun
o Abortions 12%
o Amendments 7%
o Elections 4%
o Hyperbole 26%
o Banning Stuff 26%
o Voting 20%

Votes: 63
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o this is U.S. Presidential Campaign 2004, at its finest.
o Dilate and Extract
o linguistic ally biased abortion act
o one in S.F.
o N.Y.
o Nebraska
o that the Supreme Court overturned
o Safer than What?
o Also by Wah


Display: Sort:
Banning the Bible to Get Out the Vote | 253 comments (193 topical, 60 editorial, 0 hidden)
SHUT THE FUCK UP (1.30 / 26) (#1)
by Black Belt Jones on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 08:55:28 PM EST

WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ELECTIONS IN UR DINKY BANANAREPUBLIC.

Yes, yes (none / 0) (#3)
by Wah on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 08:57:52 PM EST

but do you see any typos or have other suggestions?
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]
TOO MANY FUCKING PARENTHESIS (1.33 / 12) (#6)
by Black Belt Jones on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 09:01:13 PM EST

FIX IT ASAP OR I'LL FUCKING KILL U

[ Parent ]
Not a single one of those parenthesis... (none / 1) (#7)
by Wah on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 09:04:19 PM EST

...is getting it on, so I'm not sure what your objection is.

Oh, and I'm already dead, sorry.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

omg i really lol'ed and felt embaressed (none / 0) (#43)
by noogie on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 07:19:24 AM EST

coz my coworkers mightve thought i was crazy


*** ANONYMIZED BY THE EVIL KUROFIVEHIN MILITARY JUNTA ***
[ Parent ]
don't they know already? (2.00 / 3) (#83)
by Black Belt Jones on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:06:59 PM EST

stupid coworkers

[ Parent ]
The 4 points of the liberal agenda... (2.42 / 14) (#2)
by driptray on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 08:56:35 PM EST

...sound pretty reasonable to me. I guess I better not go to Arkansas.

Americans deserve George W Bush. It's just a pity the rest of the world has to put up with him as well.
--
We brought the disasters. The alcohol. We committed the murders. - Paul Keating

women are blond-haired, blue-eyed (none / 0) (#29)
by regeya on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:23:11 AM EST

See? I told you overgeneralizations were ridiculous...

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

They are. (none / 1) (#82)
by Zerotime on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:02:16 PM EST

Except for the ones who aren't, of course.

---
"You don't even have to drink it. You just rub it on your hips and it eats its way through to your liver."
[ Parent ]
So tell me: (none / 1) (#119)
by regeya on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 07:55:51 PM EST

What did I do to deserve Bush?

I didn't vote for him. I didn't want him. I knew what he was going to do. Why do I deserve him?

--A Disgruntled American

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

I don't know. (none / 1) (#133)
by Zerotime on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 03:27:17 AM EST

Maybe it's karma for punching a baby or something.

---
"You don't even have to drink it. You just rub it on your hips and it eats its way through to your liver."
[ Parent ]
Oh, you're just an idiot, then. (none / 1) (#145)
by regeya on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 01:06:04 PM EST

I can safely ignore you. Good.

[ yokelpunk | kuro5hin diary ]
[ Parent ]

Bush (none / 0) (#146)
by kurioszyn on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 01:18:41 PM EST

"Americans deserve George W Bush."

And you actually think that this will somehow ruin my day ?

Especially considering that I plan to vote for the guy ..

[ Parent ]

It's perfectly rational... (none / 0) (#157)
by divinus on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 04:26:41 PM EST

to vote for Bush if you're in the class of people that make over $200k/year. ($96.15/hr at full time)

[ Parent ]
No (none / 0) (#158)
by kurioszyn on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 04:42:19 PM EST

You are way off.

I am still only at a half of your number and I am much ,much better off with Bush and his policies than I would be with a typical "tax the rich" Democrat.

[ Parent ]

Well... (none / 0) (#161)
by divinus on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:03:10 PM EST

If you're not making that kind of money, then the tax cuts that Bush made didn't really affect you. Moreover, the democratic tax hikes wouldn't affect you either.

Whether the rest of the Bush policies affect you negatively or positively varies depending on whether or not you understand the relationship between national debt ($7.39 trillion, $1.72 of it (23.3%) of it from Bush) and gross domestic product $10.4 trillian, up $1.4 trillion (13.5%)since Bush.

Pretty much, the American economy is shit against the rest of the world. We used to be nestled into a nice relationship with Canada and the UK. It was £0.67 = US$1 = CA$1.5 for decades. Now it's £0.55 = US$1 = CA$1.27.

[ Parent ]

Bush (none / 1) (#164)
by kurioszyn on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:23:36 PM EST

"Moreover, the democratic tax hikes wouldn't affect you either."

I remember Clinton saying that very thing back in 1992 ...
He lied.

"Whether the rest of the Bush policies affect you negatively or positively varies depending on whether or not you understand the relationship between national debt ($7.39 trillion, $1.72 of it (23.3%) of it from Bush) and gross domestic product $10.4 trillian, up $1.4 trillion (13.5%)since Bush."

The relation you are talking about is viewed much differently by different economists.

"Pretty much, the American economy is shit against the rest of the world."

Same principle applies.
There are plenty of people with enough credentials who vigorously  argue otherwise.

[ Parent ]

Debt aside.... (none / 1) (#165)
by Sgt York on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:24:30 PM EST

Bush's tax policies have helped people with lower scale incomes, like me. I make very, very little (still in grad school, teaching part time) and my wife just started a business, after being off work for a bit over a year for a few reasons.

Or taxes under Bush have been much, much lower, while making essentially the same ammount of money. This is overall taxes paid, not just "Ooooh, look, my refund is bigger!"

The tax policies did put more money in my pocket. I really paid no tax this last year, compared to just above a pittance last year. It's only a few hundred dollars, but that's a lot to us.

As for long-term effects, I would have rather had no tax cut and less of a deficit. We could have had both, but Bush didn't really seem to want to swing that. And it wasn't just the war that jacked up the budget. I guess one good thing he did economically was the drug benefit. Well, good for me at least. I'm a biochemist. Now I can make a shitload of money at the drug co's. The rest of you can just suck it up and buy me a Lexus with your tax dollars next time you get sick!


There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

ugh (none / 0) (#169)
by MrLarch on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:50:07 PM EST

blah blah national debt blah shit blah CA$

OMG! The exchange rate changed and we borrowed from the treasury some more! THE END IS NEAR!

[ Parent ]

You must be new here. (1.14 / 7) (#11)
by julius on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 09:19:12 PM EST

This is op-ed.

I was thinking M(indful)LP...<nt> (none / 1) (#13)
by GenerationY on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 09:37:29 PM EST



[ Parent ]
No - you expressed your own opinions. (none / 1) (#56)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:00:17 AM EST

If you just laid it out and didn't offer your own take on it, it would be MLP. Since you did offer an opinion, it's op-ed.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]
I hope this is faked. (none / 0) (#17)
by student on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 09:55:49 PM EST

If someone doesn't find evidence that the linked image is a fake soon, I won't be sleeping for a while.

As a teen, I would like to say that #2 would be very nice.


Simon's Rock College of Bard, a college for younger scholars.

It's not faked (none / 1) (#44)
by jubal3 on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 07:31:21 AM EST

Read the link and follow the AP link on the blog. It's carried by the Associated Press, who quote the RNC as at the very least, not denying it.


***Never attribute to malice that which can be easily attributed to incompetence. -HB Owen***
[ Parent ]
How do you pronounce Arkansas? (3.00 / 2) (#20)
by gr3y on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 11:42:15 PM EST

R-KANSAS or R-CAN-SAW?

I am a disruptive technology.

Our kin saw [n/t] (none / 0) (#21)
by NeantHumain on Wed Sep 22, 2004 at 11:55:33 PM EST


I hate my sig.


[ Parent ]
Why? (none / 0) (#40)
by nebbish on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 05:26:15 AM EST

When Kansas is pronounced Kansas? I've always wondered.

---------
Kicking someone in the head is like punching them in the foot - Bruce Lee
[ Parent ]

Given that neither is an English word (2.62 / 8) (#55)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 09:59:01 AM EST

you really shouldn't worry to much about it.

Not really any different from Brits having names spelled like "Rutherfordishire" but are pronounced "Jones".


I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]

Beats the h*ll out of me! (none / 1) (#76)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 11:35:07 AM EST

As a Missourian, I've been scratching my head over the oddities of my neighbors for years.
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]
Your mistake is... (3.00 / 4) (#102)
by CanSpice on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:56:38 PM EST

...assuming Kansas is pronounced Kansas. It's pronounced "CAN-SAW".

[ Parent ]
Our kin saw WHAT? [N/T] (none / 1) (#120)
by gr3y on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 08:23:44 PM EST



I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]
R-CAN-SAW ... this was settled ... (3.00 / 6) (#46)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 07:53:03 AM EST

... a long time ago ... i quote ...

One time there was a goddam Yankee moved to Arkansas, and got elected to the Legislature. The first thing he done was put in a bill to make Arkansas rhyme with Kansas, just because it is spelled that way. The Arkansawyers got pretty mad, of course, so they begun to stomp and holler. There was one old man that hollered louder than anybody else, and finally the rest of 'em quietened down to hear what he had to say.

"Mr Speaker, God damn your soul," says he, "I've been trying to get the floor for thirty minutes, but all you do is squirm around like a dog with a flea in his ass! I'm Senator Cassius F Johnson from Johnson County, where we raise men with peckers on, and the women are glad of it. Why, gentlemen, at the tender age of sixteen them girls can throw their left tit over their right shoulder, and squirt milk up their ass-hole as the occasion demands! When I was fourteen years old my prick was big as a roasting-ear, the pride and joy of the whole goddam settlement. Gentlemen, I could piss half-way across the Ouachita!"

Everybody clapped when they heard that, but the Speaker begun to holler "Out of order! Out of order!" and pound on his desk.

"You're goddam right it was out of order," says Senator Johnson, "otherwise I could have pissed clear across the son-of-a-bitch! That's the kind of folks we raise in Johnson County, gentlemen, and we ain't never been dictated to by nobody. And now comes this pusillanimous blue-bellied Yankee who wants to change the name of Arkansas! Why Mister Speaker, he compares the great state of Arkansas to Kansas! You might as well liken the noonday sun in all its glory to the feeble glow of a lightning-bug's ass, or the fragrance of an American Beauty rose to the foul quintessence of a Mexican burro's fart! Can all the power of this Assembly enlarge the puny penis of a Peruvian prince to a ponderous Pagan prick, or the tiny testicles of a Turkish tyrant to the bulky bollyz of a Roman gladiator? Change the name of Arkansas? Great God Almighty damn! No, gentlemen! Hell fire, no!"

What the God damn hell is things a-coming to, anyhow? Why, gentlemen, it's got so a man can't take down his pants for a good country shit without getting his ass full of birdshot. Change the name of Arkansas? Great God Almighty damn! You may piss on Jefferson's grave, gentlemen. You may shit down the White House steps, and use the Declaration of Independence for a corncob. You may rape the Goddess of Liberty at high noon, and wipe your tallywhacker on the Star Spangled Banner. You may do all this, gentlemen, and more. But you can't change the name of Arkansas! Not while one patriot lives to prevent such desecration! Change the name of Arkansas? Hell fire, no!"

History don't tell us what happened after that, but everybody knows the Yankee's bill was killed, dead as a whore's turd in a piss-pot. Them son-of-a-bitches up North think the whole thing was just a joke, and some of 'em claim Senator Johnson didn't make no speech at all. But every true-blooded Arkansawyer knows that Senator Cassius M. Johnson jumped into the breech that day, to save the Bear State from treason and disgrace. We ain't going to forget it, neither.


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]

BUT... (none / 0) (#109)
by CivisHumanus on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 06:10:19 PM EST

The Arkansas River, a portion of which runs through the state of Kansas, is pronounced Ar-kansas, not Our-kin-saw like the state.

Go figure...


[ Parent ]

"Akansea" - People of the South Wind (none / 0) (#47)
by SaintPort on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 08:36:36 AM EST

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/1388/

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]
I'm partial to R-KANSAS (3.00 / 3) (#104)
by cburke on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 03:22:50 PM EST

Which is quite wrong, but I like it because to me it evokes the idea of some kind of futuristic cyborg space-Kansas.

[ Parent ]
I'm also partial to R-KANSAS... (none / 1) (#121)
by gr3y on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 08:27:36 PM EST

because it makes people from Arkansas ma-yed.

I am a disruptive technology.
[ Parent ]

I don't get it, (2.57 / 7) (#24)
by Zerotime on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 12:20:58 AM EST

How is the "liberals" imposing their values on everyone any different than the "conservatives" imposing their values on anyone?

---
"You don't even have to drink it. You just rub it on your hips and it eats its way through to your liver."
s/anyone/everyone/ [nt] (none / 1) (#36)
by Zerotime on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:43:31 AM EST



[ Parent ]
2 differences (none / 1) (#68)
by Cro Magnon on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 11:00:12 AM EST

1. The liberal values are all wrong! ;)

2. A true conservative doesn't impose their values, since one of their values is to keep Big Government out of our hair. (of course that brings up the question of whether the current Repubs are "true" conservatives)
Information wants to be beer.
[ Parent ]

It's funny... (2.33 / 3) (#79)
by gzt on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 12:15:43 PM EST

...people don't realize all this "values" talk means the nihilists have won.

[ Parent ]
Not at all (none / 0) (#111)
by Morosoph on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 06:26:13 PM EST

The opposite of a single-valued society isn't a multi-valued one, but a zero-valued one.

It's obvious that people value different things.  Some value equality above freedom, others vice-versa.  Some value order, some value social freedom over economic freedom, some the other way around.  Some have decidedly green values, others not.

Not to see this is to be ignorant of the people around you.  To state that there are only one set of values is clearly false.

Rather than railing against diversity, isn't it better to seek areas of common ground, to find areas of reciprocity and trade, to attempt to allow people their space when values do clash?

[ Parent ]

I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#117)
by gzt on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 07:26:30 PM EST

The dialectic of values was created by Nietzsche. It has changed our political rhetoric so much that people like you now exist who cannot imagine it could be otherwise. You prove my point: the nihilists have won.

I'm not railing against diversity. I'm not in favor or opposed to a "single-valued society" or a "multi-valued society": I'm opposed to the rhetoric of values.

[ Parent ]

But (none / 0) (#123)
by MrLarch on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 09:41:40 PM EST

for one to recognize that people hold "different values", which encompases everything from preferences to beliefs in the known and unknown, doesn't mean that one believes that the values have any value of legitimacy beyond that if it were mocked the holders of the value(s) would be pissed.

There is a difference between (a) abstracting from both what is and what you believe to be true and (b) using the rhetoric to infiltrate discussion about the subject.

[ Parent ]

I keep turning this over in my head... (none / 0) (#125)
by gzt on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:11:21 PM EST

...but I don't quite see your point.

[ Parent ]
ok (none / 0) (#126)
by MrLarch on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:31:38 PM EST

Assuming by "the nihilists have won" you mean that changing the language of discussing the differences in what people believe will change how they think about it (specifically more relativist, culminating in the thought that all "values" are worthless or something to that effect), then the last sentence in my other post clearly states my point. If my assumption was wrong, then my point was irrelevant.

[ Parent ]
well, that's a relief (none / 0) (#139)
by speek on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 10:55:00 AM EST

I'm heartened to see that two posters incomprehensible to me are also incomprehensible to each other. There's a name that comes to mind in all this - med.... med.... medsomething

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

fwiw (none / 0) (#168)
by MrLarch on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:46:51 PM EST

Battle Troll pointed the point out most pointedly above.

[ Parent ]
Rhetoric != reality (none / 0) (#143)
by Morosoph on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 12:11:30 PM EST

To paint Nietzsche as a nihilist is a severe distortion, to say the least;  he was clearly a man who celebrated life, even if you disagree with the bulk of what he said.

Besides, he simply pointed out what should have been obvious:  that people do promote and desire different things in the world.  That we can now see this doesn't make us any less moral;  it only makes us less blind.

The fact that our language has been extended because of Nietzsche's observations is not sufficient proof of nihilism within society.

Pre-empting the usual response to such a post (without suggesting that you yourself would respond in such a way), let me add that to say that Nietzsche making an observation neither makes him right in general, nor makes that specific observation false.

[ Parent ]

you're in the Matrix, d00d (none / 0) (#144)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 12:49:15 PM EST

Besides, he simply pointed out what should have been obvious: that people do promote and desire different things in the world. That we can now see this doesn't make us any less moral; it only makes us less blind.

No, your incapacity to understand people who deny a rhetoric of values makes you blind.

Nietzsche did rather more than 'point out ... that people do ... desire different things.' The emphasis there is all wrong. The real point of his philosophy is that the intensity of conviction that we bring to values supercedes any truth or falsehood that they might or might have. Basically, he concludes that the multiplicity of opinions is evidence that none can ever be known to be right, and from there, it's just a hop to the idea that if none can be known to be right, truth and falsehood are irrelevant, impossible, and insofar as they are cited, are simply weapons in an ideological power struggle.

This is the textbook meaning of nihilism, and Nietzsche's 'celebrating life' is utterly irrelevant to debating whether or not he was a nihilist, by the way.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

So (none / 0) (#150)
by speek on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 02:25:37 PM EST

Do you think your beliefs about the world and morality, about the purpose of life are true, that you can know them to be right?

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

let's address this topic more generally (none / 0) (#153)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 03:23:56 PM EST

Do you think that anyone's beliefs about the world and morality, about the purpose of life are true, that you can know them to be right?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I don't know and no (none / 0) (#159)
by speek on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 04:51:57 PM EST

But, we all know that I don't know squat.

I'm asking you.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

yeah, that's what I thought (none / 0) (#162)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:03:59 PM EST

I'd say that all of our knowledge is to some degree contingent, but there are some things that we can know less uncertainly than others. I also think that 'values' are no substitute for reasoning.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
on the other hand (none / 1) (#163)
by speek on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:23:19 PM EST

If I tell you I value the life of my wife over a stranger's, you'd have a hard time disputing me. No amount of reasoning is likely to change my "values".

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

sure (none / 0) (#180)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 08:54:43 PM EST

Are you proposing that all things that people proclaim to be 'values' are similarly excluded from debate?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
no (none / 0) (#187)
by speek on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 10:41:05 PM EST

There are many things people call values which are nowhere near as basic as what I described, things that usually were once reasoned out that over time calcified into unthinking maxims and mottos and assumptions. That tendency to dogmatism has little to do with Nietsche or nihilism though. That tendency helped inspire his criticism.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

anyway (none / 0) (#197)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:41:05 AM EST

You're saying that a genuine value (eg, regard for your wife,) as opposed to the ossified appendix of one, cannot be criticized or questioned - it just is. This sounds to me like an abdication of responsibility. You obviously don't believe that your regard for your wife is illogical or irrational, just that it's arational and alogical; this isn't something with damages my argument, in principle, because a rational exposition of one's politics must necessarily be rooted in one's feelings, which are not subject to reason, as you correctly claim. But it seems to me that there's all the difference in the world between rational argument among emotional agents and an assertion in principle that rationality is completely impossible and irrelevant, as a sufficiently great difference in degree may be taken to be a difference in kind.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0) (#202)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 12:02:48 PM EST

I am not arguing that rationality is impossible or irrelevant. Reasoning and rationality are not a guarantee of certainty or of objective knowledge, however. Particularly being based on individual feelings and emotions. As a consequence, in my view, a rational conversation must necessarily accept these roots, and that acceptance is not an "abdication of responsibility", but, in fact, an accepting of responsibility - an accepting that oneself is the source of one's values, and not pawned off on a metaphysical, unknowable entity/being/logos.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

heh (none / 0) (#203)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 12:16:07 PM EST

I knew you'd take a kick at theism sooner or later.

Reasoning and rationality are not a guarantee of certainty or of objective knowledge, however.

In fact, they presuppose its possibility. Otherwise, 'diplomacy is only warfare by other means.' (Heh.)

As a consequence, in my view, a rational conversation must necessarily accept these roots...

Well, that's only your opinion - who are YOU to argue with MY values??

an accepting that oneself is the source of one's values

That's the same as to say that they have no source, if you have a materialist metaphysic.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

but of course (none / 0) (#204)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 01:26:08 PM EST

The possibility of reasoning correctly, of being correct, is always there. The certainty that your reasoning faculties worked properly, that your information was complete enough is not.

...who are YOU to argue with MY values?

Well, in fact, I am a person YOU have selected to argue YOUR values with, at times. And you are a person I have selected to argue MY values with, at times. We are no more and no less than that - as long as you accept there is no coercion going on between us.

That's the same as to say that they have no source, if you have a materialist metaphysic.

No, it means I am the source. My body, my mind, my physical existence and everything it encompasses. That all that may have an more ultimate source in the material laws of the universe and it's history is of little consequence, because my existence is persistent enough and self-perpetuating enough to warrant the language of self to be used, even if it's ultimately untenable. In general, I would argue against the need to always take things back to an ultimate source. As Rorty says, let's talk about something else.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

Rorty, eh? (none / 0) (#206)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 01:58:06 PM EST

I thought I smelled him. Who's next, Rawls?

We are no more and no less than that - as long as you accept there is no coercion going on between us.

Don't sidestep the issue. You obviously think that you are in some sense 'right,' or you wouldn't be arguing. So do I, but then, for me, that isn't biting a bullet.

The possibility of reasoning correctly, of being correct, is always there.

Not if we accept Nietzsche's (and your) claim that there's no 'true' to argue about, only questions of dominance. This next point seems pretty telling in light of this:[M]y existence is persistent enough and self-perpetuating enough to warrant the language of self to be used, even if it's ultimately untenable.

If we're going to be talking about 'the possibility of being correct,' we need to have a metaphysic that supports a meaningful 'correct' that has more meaning to it than simply designating the winning side in an ideological-political power struggle. Otherwise, frankly, all you have is a smokescreen of double-talk over a nihilistic void.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

no, you're misrepresenting me (none / 0) (#209)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 02:31:53 PM EST

I never said there's no 'true' to argue about. I'm not a relativist, but a materialist. There is a real world and a proposition about it can be 'true' or 'false'. Verification of our propositions is difficult, however, and never certain. And in light of that, yes, I rate my views as having a greater chance of being "right" than some others - but I don't express or claim certainty. And I have changed my views considerably in the last few years.

If we're going to be talking about 'the possibility of being correct,' we need to have a metaphysic that supports a meaningful 'correct' that has more meaning to it than simply designating the winning side in an ideological-political power struggle

No we don't. We need no such thing. A physical reality that we are fully part of is enough. Pervasive uncertainty does not 'need' to be somehow fixed - it can be accepted. And then we move on. A need for an underlying metaphysical explanation of truth and self was a false idea that has infected western philosophy. One can get "stuck" insisting on ultimate causes, on the need for a framework that can hold up an ideal of Truth, on the need for a basis of reason that grounds our arguments. But there is no such need, and there is nothing to replace it with. That this leaves us unanchored, swimming in a "void" as you might call it does not bother me. In fact, it makes me happy :-) I find enlightenment philosophy horribly oppressive. Quite a bit worse than religious philosophy, in fact - with religious philosophy, I at least can point to Kierkegaard and make the point that one's faith, in any event, is a wholly individualistic thing, not to be mediated by any arguments about truth and correctness.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

well, now you've at least given me something to (none / 0) (#213)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 03:25:00 PM EST

argue against.

There is a real world and a proposition about it can be 'true' or 'false'. Verification of our propositions is difficult, however, and never certain. And in light of that, yes, I rate my views as having a greater chance of being "right" than some others - but I don't express or claim certainty.

This is my position too, as I made clear considerably upthread, when you were trying to get me to claim a universal system or something.

A physical reality that we are fully part of is enough.

Yes, because a materialist metaphysic can support a correspondence theory of truth, among others.

One can get "stuck" insisting on ultimate causes, on the need for a framework that can hold up an ideal of Truth, on the need for a basis of reason that grounds our arguments.

Hey, man, do I look like a Catholic or something? Maybe I ought to give you crap for misrepresenting me. Since you bring up Kierkegaard, let me quote Bishop Ware at you: "Latin Scholastic theology ... comes near to turning God into an abstract idea ... a remote and impersonal being, whose existence has to be proved by metaphysical arguments." (The Orthodox Church, 2nd ed., p. 215.)
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I don't know what you look like (none / 0) (#215)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 04:05:04 PM EST

This is my position too, as I made clear considerably upthread, when you were trying to get me to claim a universal system or something.

So we are, in fact, in full agreement about the pervasiveness of uncertainty? Somehow I doubt it.

Yes, because a materialist metaphysic can support a correspondence theory of truth, among others.

Sure it can. But it's a theory that will do nothing to help you know when you are corresponding.

Hey, man, do I look like a Catholic or something?

I have no friggin' clue what you, or gzt, are in this regard. Neither of you will ever really say anything substantive about your beliefs, or at least, not in a language a simpleton like myself can comprehend. Once you pointed to the Nicean creed (sp?) as something I should check out to understand you (maybe it was gzt, but you're the same person, rather like skyknight and myself, so whatever), but that seemed like a catholic thing. Really, I started asking what you thought you could know for certain, and you have yet to really put anything out there.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

so anyway (none / 0) (#217)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 05:07:38 PM EST

[W]e are, in fact, in full agreement about the pervasiveness of uncertainty?

I think so, except that I don't like to see it used as a stalking-horse for introducing a rhetoric of irreducible values in place of substantive, credible public debate. In other words, our disagreement is probably political, not philosophical.

Really, I started asking what you thought you could know for certain, and you have yet to really put anything out there.

Yeah, there's a good reason for that - the mere fact that I don't have certain knowledge does not preclude anyone else's possibly having it, nor does it mean that public debate about whatever should degenerate into tripe about 'values.'
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

so I'm against substantive, credible public debate (none / 0) (#218)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 05:12:15 PM EST

Ok then.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

look, I can only argue with what you have written (none / 0) (#220)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 05:28:54 PM EST

The possibility of reasoning correctly, of being correct, is always there. The certainty that your reasoning faculties worked properly, that your information was complete enough is not.

Why bother arguing this is you don't mean it? No one can ever be certain that they're right, but all must work, in patience and humility, to make themselves as right as ever they can be. All this fiddle-faddle about how your love for your wife is an irreducible value only confuses the issue, which is that, as you yourself have admitted, most things that people claim to be irreducible values are in fact highly susceptible to credible, convincing independent rational criticism.

As anyone of any sophistication is likely to admit, both the pervasiveness of uncertainty and the necessity to establish convincing, reasoned criteria of value are essential to debate in the modern word. So I mean what I said: invoking 'values' to terminate reasoned debate on the grounds that all debate is simply political-ideological warfare is nothing more than ideological thuggery. (That's one reason it has primarily gained ground in the universities; that it is such a contentious battleground in the 'culture wars;' and that its adoption by the right has not only proven possible but has become the defining trait of the American right since the mid-90's.)
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

hopefully this will clarify (none / 0) (#223)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 08:20:26 PM EST

I agree entirely with you and gzt about the poverty of the "rhetoric of values", now that I understand it. When we started, I had no idea what was meant by that. I also agree entirely with the patience and humility to strive toward rightness. Some values are irreducible, but, again, you're right that most of the time, in politics, those aren't the values we're arguing about.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

since we're friends now (none / 0) (#227)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:29:59 PM EST

Maybe you could change your sig.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
I can do that (none / 0) (#233)
by speek on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 08:55:56 AM EST

I'm curious if you still believe it though.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

I was quoted out of context (none / 1) (#235)
by Battle Troll on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 11:03:38 AM EST

In the thread in question, being 'open about sex' included actively teaching a prepubescent about masturbation (rather than just commenting on behaviour or answering questions) and even providing her with sex toys. To me, that sounds like the parents in question were not just derelict in their responsibilities; they were letting their political convictions lead them to prematurely, inappropriately, and harmfully instigate an unwanted sexual awakening in their daughter. It's like fundamentalists whipping their kids, but worse.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Beyond Good and Evil (none / 0) (#152)
by Morosoph on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 03:05:12 PM EST

Nietzsche did rather more than 'point out ... that people do ... desire different things.' The emphasis there is all wrong. The real point of his philosophy is that the intensity of conviction that we bring to values supercedes any truth or falsehood that they might or might have. Basically, he concludes that the multiplicity of opinions is evidence that none can ever be known to be right, and from there, it's just a hop to the idea that if none can be known to be right, truth and falsehood are irrelevant, impossible, and insofar as they are cited, are simply weapons in an ideological power struggle.
Yet so much of what he wrote was aimed at shocking people into seeing their own bias. He belived that such self-overcoming was possible, but difficult. He encouraged his readers to conceive of a "point beyond good and evil", a celebration of all values, and none. But it was none only because it was to be superceded by this intuition, this more abstract spirit. He was not a nihilist.

[ Parent ]
more (none / 1) (#154)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 03:29:55 PM EST

He encouraged his readers to conceive of a "point beyond good and evil", a celebration of all values, and none. But it was none only because it was to be superceded by this intuition, this more abstract spirit.

Yes, he boxed himself into having to worship an irrational life force or elan vital. But a paradox is not an argument - the practical implications of his beliefs is the nihilism of equivalent incomparable 'values' the merits of which are measured by the mere force of conviction behind them.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

apt description (none / 0) (#170)
by speek on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:59:43 PM EST

...the practical implications of his beliefs is the nihilism of equivalent incomparable 'values' the merits of which are measured by the mere force of conviction behind them.

That seems rather an apt description of human reality and of our discussions, both here and elsewhere.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

wisecracks aside (none / 0) (#181)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 08:56:35 PM EST

It really doesn't seem to me to be the case. If it were, where would convictions come from in the first place?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
people grow tired (none / 0) (#186)
by speek on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 10:35:43 PM EST

They grow tired of not having convictions, of living with uncertainty, of constantly feeling doubt. It's easier to settle into a set of beliefs and let it go at that.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

if nothing is ever certain (none / 0) (#196)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:31:03 AM EST

How is it that people come to crave certainty?
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
as I said, people grow tired (none / 0) (#201)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:55:11 AM EST

Anyway, some things are certain - such as my example about my valuation of the life of a loved one.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

ugh (none / 0) (#207)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 01:59:25 PM EST

Hatred can be just as much a 'value' as love, but I don't see you lining up to claim it as one.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
sure (none / 0) (#211)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 02:49:14 PM EST

I wasn't claiming "love" itself as a value. I was claiming that I value my wife. There was nothing universal about my specific claim at all. Similarly I could hate someone and be just as certain that I do, in fact, hate them. But understand that, while one can't really be wrong about the fact that one hates someone or something, one can be very wrong in thinking such emotion is justified.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

well there you go again (none / 0) (#214)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 03:26:57 PM EST

Talking about 'justifications' as though emotions were subject to reasoning. They just are what they are. From what possible privileged, objective viewpoint could you conceivably argue, even in principle, one to be 'justified' and another 'unjustified?'
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
yeah (none / 0) (#216)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 04:23:04 PM EST

I am stuck using a language of morality because it is the way we speak. So I will use it, even if I don't really mean it quite as it sounds. In this case, I was thinking about justification in terms of the story one tells oneself about why one hates another, and how well that story corresponds with the reality of the situation. In terms of moral justification for hating or acting, I think it comes down to how well you model reality and predict the effects of your actions in terms of those things you value (ie my wife). If your actions create the benefits you value, then you acted well (justified). Otherwise, you acted poorly (unjustified).

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

you baffle me (none / 0) (#219)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 05:17:05 PM EST

I was thinking about justification in terms of the story one tells oneself about why one hates another, and how well that story corresponds with the reality of the situation.

How well according to whose magic golden objective standard? I would love to see an objective standard, can you show me one?

If your actions create the benefits you value, then you acted well (justified). Otherwise, you acted poorly (unjustified).

So you're saying that a skillful child-molester is moral, so long as he gets what he wants and doesn't get caught, and (eg) Pastor Heinrich Grüber was immoral, because he failed to move Eichmann. See, this formulation continues to hold values above anyone's reproach but your own. Any independent criticism of them must rest, in these terms, on whether they're 'authentic' like your love for your wife or 'inauthentic,' like all those ossified prejudices that everyone else apparently lives by.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

you keep asking unanswerable questions (none / 0) (#222)
by speek on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 08:15:33 PM EST

So don't be surprised I can't answer them. No magic golden objective standard - must I keep saying that? The words "correspondence to reality" has meaning - but that does not require that I know how to measure it.

If a person exists who truly is getting all they want by being a child-molester, I cannot argue they are doing wrong anymore than I could argue the lion is wrong to kill the antelope or the cat wrong to torment the mouse. They are doing what they were meant to do. It doesn't mean everyone else has to applaud though.

And yes, it has everything to do with 'authenticity' inasmuch as authenticity has everything to do with accurate correspondence with reality. And no, again, I have no way of determining that correspondence. We simply do our best.

--
al queda is kicking themsleves for not knowing about the levees
[ Parent ]

However distasteful you find it, (none / 0) (#172)
by it certainly is on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 07:14:16 PM EST

you have to admit Nietzsche was right.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

please elucidate. /nt (none / 0) (#182)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 08:56:54 PM EST


--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
He correctly predicted (none / 1) (#225)
by it certainly is on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 08:28:44 PM EST

the downfall of theistic popular society. He also predicted the uncontrolled mysticism that swooped in to fill the moral vacuum left by a secular society. He advocated an empty, pointless life, which is what most people get these days. What's not to like?

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

uncontrolled mysticism (none / 0) (#237)
by Battle Troll on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 03:33:18 PM EST

Well put, old man. It's like Chesterton said: 'when men cease to believe in God, they don't believe in nothing, they believe in anything.'

I agree, the West backed itself into one hell of a rut with Enlightenment philosophy's undeclared war on the responsible individual and free will. That's why I took off eastward.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Still More (none / 0) (#175)
by Morosoph on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 07:30:14 PM EST

Well if our convictions generally overwhelm our logic, then he's surely doing us a favour by pointing this out?  Becoming aware of this tendency, we surely gain greater leverage to master our irrationality?

Maybe it's impossible to do this, but that's not Neitzsche's fault.  If it is fact that we are doomed to be biased, you cannot blame Neitzsche.  Shooting the messenger generally doesn't help.

I know that's not what Neitzsche was advocating, BTW, but then I am not a Neitzschian.

[ Parent ]

it goes a good deal further (none / 0) (#183)
by Battle Troll on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 08:58:26 PM EST

Well if our convictions generally overwhelm our logic, then he's surely doing us a favour by pointing this out?

Nietzsche was really arguing that there's no 'logic,' just power.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (none / 0) (#185)
by Morosoph on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 09:46:40 PM EST

If you conceed that there exists no singular absolute, then what you are left with is a struggle between several contendors, but that is no reason to abandon the struggle. It might be reason to go about it more intelligently, for example seeking symbiosis where you might have previously sought to simply overwhelm someone who was blocking your attempt to further your values.

Also, knowing how you're likely to have aquired your values can help to to render them more consistent, possibly reject them, perhaps embrace others, but you have surely gained in objectivity, even if cannot call your final position "correct" in absolute terms.

The other thing that's worth pointing out is that Neitzsche had a vision of a creative society; in fact he took to expounding the value to the society at large of the prescence of mavericks within it. Thus to challenge norms was to be in some sense creating value. By this he didn't mean the modern counter-culture, of course, but people who did things (exercised power), especially artists. Thus his vision was certainly not one of decay, which is why it is wrong to call him a nihilist in spirit, even if dictionaries define him thus. If you stick with the definition, you then need to explain why nihilism is necessarily bad.

Moreover, even if Neitzsche argued that there was no logic and only power, that's no reason to believe him. His observation that people have different values has to be accounted for in any attempt to understand people, or act intelligently, which is essential if your actions are to amount to anything!

[ Parent ]

Shorter reply (none / 0) (#193)
by Morosoph on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 06:06:34 AM EST

I should have replied: So what if Neitzsche claims that there's no logic? It doesn't mean that there isn't, but it also doesn't mean that people suddenly want the same thing either!

[ Parent ]
you're not listening. (none / 0) (#198)
by Battle Troll on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:46:39 AM EST

So what if Neitzsche claims that there's no logic? It doesn't mean that there isn't, but it also doesn't mean that people suddenly want the same thing either!

I don't care what people want; what I care about is whether there is such a thing as truth in principle. That's a completely different topic.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

I see (none / 0) (#199)
by Morosoph on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:01:21 AM EST

Okay. Truth exists. The universe exists and has a form. Our understanding of truth is not truth, and how we justify our actions may or may not have grounding in reality.

That there is one universe shared by all is common ground here; I don't even think that Neitzsche would have disagreed there.

However, people do not entirely share values. To observe this is to see the world as it is; to deny it is surely to promote our system of ethics above the actual physical world, which is exactly the kind of distortion that Neitzsche was talking about.

[ Parent ]

Poisoning the well (none / 0) (#230)
by Morosoph on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 06:44:22 AM EST

Looking back over this thread, I feel that I haven't really got across my point, and it isn't that Neitzsche is an okay dood.

Rather it is this: Nietzsche said a lot more than just that people had different values, but an analysis that accounts for people not sharing values across the board does not imply what Nietzsche said at full strength.

Simply, people could (for example) recognise the same reality, but have different criteria of what is good or worthwhile. Most economists hold to this reasoning, for example, and did before Nietzsche came on the scene.

You appear to be attempting to poison the well by suggesting that those who recognise a diversity of values are nihilists. Maybe the number of those who use the diversity of values in their reasoning is a barometer of the penetration of nihilism, but it is no proof.

I'm sorry if I appear not to be listening re: Nietzsche; I've not been trying to say that Nietzsche is right, but rather that I was trying to say something different from him.

As an additional point, I've been attempting to explain why I believe Nietzsche to be no nihilist. If animism is false, that doesn't make animists nihilists; it simply makes them wrong. Few of us would consider those who believe in an immortal soul to be nihilists, for example, even if we judge them to be self-delusional. Just as

[ Parent ]

more (none / 0) (#231)
by Battle Troll on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 07:33:56 AM EST

You appear to be attempting to poison the well by suggesting that those who recognise a diversity of values are nihilists.

No, the nihilists are only those who take the mere diversity of values and argue from there that all values (in practice, only those they like, but whatever) are equal and irreducible.

I've been attempting to explain why I believe Nietzsche to be no nihilist. If animism is false, that doesn't make animists nihilists; it simply makes them wrong.

I'm sorry, I'm a little slow. What is the relevance of this to Nietzsche?

For all Nietzsche's 'celebration of life,' he dealt with the metaphysical issue of determinism vs. free will by anoininting the unconscious and irrational, the free part of man, as the 'essentially human.' This led directly to the contemporary rhetoric of values, in which mere irrationality and incoherence is far less of a strike against a 'value' than is lack of conviction. Hence, eg, the unconcealed admiration many leftists hold for Muslim radicals, or Bush's many blithe dismissals of facts that would give any merely rational person pause.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Partial agreement (none / 0) (#232)
by Morosoph on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 08:33:50 AM EST

No, the nihilists are only those who take the mere diversity of values and argue from there that all values (in practice, only those they like, but whatever) are equal and irreducible.

Then we have no argument. I hold values to be partially ordered.

I got the impression that you were saying that nihilism made a claim to truth, rather than merely our judgments of what was superior and inferior, though.

Hence, eg, the unconcealed admiration many leftists hold for Muslim radicals,

This is distasteful to most (including myself), and I'd say that we have every right to counter this. But it is our humanity that motivates us, rather than our philosophical rigour.

Bush's many blithe dismissals of facts that would give any merely rational person pause.

This [political distortion of fact] also causes me great worry.

[ Parent ]

Let me add... (none / 0) (#234)
by Morosoph on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 09:10:44 AM EST

The actions that Nietzsche made possible do not make his analysis wholly without merit. That he made Bush's dismissal of the facts possible is unfortunate, but consider the process of coming up with a new scientific theory:

Here, one cannot deduce very much from the existing structure, where rational thought would tend to attempt to extend existing concepts. The formation of a new theory is a process that combines guesswork, and rigour as a process, rather than something that was present from the beginning, so that the theory gains coherence, rather than being fully coherent from step one.

This echoes Nietzsche's observation that the rational rose out from the irrational, which also cautions us against systemising too fast, lest we overfit the data.

True, we cannot afford to embrace total relativism: reality exists. But we do need to be weary of out tendency to distort the world to fit pre-existing structures. Sometimes the revolutionary nature of a new theory is such that to give it a chance to develop, a contrary bias is required to nurture it whilst is it still young. This has its own side-effects, but it does allow a new theory to develop.

[ Parent ]

hmm (none / 0) (#236)
by Battle Troll on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 11:06:33 AM EST

Sometimes the revolutionary nature of a new theory is such that to give it a chance to develop, a contrary bias is required to nurture it whilst is it still young.

A good Hegelian would even say that, if it is really revolutionary, its revolutionary nature is in itself all the justification necessary for whatever means might be required to nurture it.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

Collective Electrodynamics (none / 0) (#238)
by Morosoph on Sun Sep 26, 2004 at 04:27:02 PM EST

I'm sorry, the link didn't make my point very clearly. I've read the book, and remembered its very classical "feel", despite being a book on quantum theory.

In his book, Carver A. Mead shows that many of the stranger ideas of QM aren't required if you soften the need for particles. Our favourite counter-intuitive concepts have gone (such as wave-particle duality), yet there still remains some strangeness. He also finally manages to 'absorb' classical electromagnetics.

I would contend that many of the strange ideas of QM were in fact due to a "distinctiveness" drive, that is: they were a side-effect of the real need to overcome the more classical way of looking at things in one's own mind. Hopefully this book should help correct that error.

A good Hegelian would even say that, if it is really revolutionary, its revolutionary nature is in itself all the justification necessary for whatever means might be required to nurture it.

Certainly, "thesis, antithesis, synthesis" comes to mind here, but the trouble with the Hegalian model is that it fails to allow for a multiplicity of alternatives, and the creative "economy" of posibilities, of contenders for the throne, in its dualistic form.

I would claim that there's a simple process of error and correction going on here, although practical politics might makes corrections difficult "before the time is right". The errors are not essential to the process, but are simply a side effect of it.

[ Parent ]

but he's wrong (if that's an accurate description) (none / 1) (#194)
by Wah on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 06:48:59 AM EST

Basically, he concludes that the multiplicity of opinions is evidence that none can ever be known to be right, and from there, it's just a hop to the idea that if none can be known to be right, truth and falsehood are irrelevant, impossible, and insofar as they are cited, are simply weapons in an ideological power struggle.

Mutation and competition for scarce, life-enhancing resources force one or more of the 'muliplicity of opinions' to spread further, faster, and deeper than the others.

There is no requirement, however, that it settle on a single 'value' if you will, in order for result to be relevant.

Relevant results are multiplied and the cycle continues to refine the equations.

[guess who hasn't been sleeping tonight?  A pamphlet long comment, it is.]
--
IHBT
[ Parent ]

I must protest (none / 0) (#244)
by cr8dle2grave on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 01:45:25 PM EST

You're construing Nietzsche's position regarding nihilism just a tad too simplistically. He viewed nihilism as a deadly temptation to be resisted--even if that resistance would ultimately prove to have been in vain--and not a philosophical position to be embraced (cf. Schopenhauer as Educator).

And while it is true that Nietzsche believed that "[t]here are no moral phenomena at all, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena" it does not follow from this that all possible moral interpretations are necessarily equal. He does not counsel that we refrain from judgement, in fact he argues that such judgements, given the nature of what man is, cannot but be made. What Nietzsche does deny us is the sure footed ground of a stable metaphysical substrate in which we can anchor our beliefs and which serves to vouchsafe the certainty of our convictions. He was, perhaps naively, convinced that it was imperative that metaphysics be banished from the realm of philosophy.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
more (none / 0) (#251)
by Battle Troll on Fri Oct 01, 2004 at 09:01:02 PM EST

He viewed nihilism as a deadly temptation to be resisted--even if that resistance would ultimately prove to have been in vain...

I'm not concerned with his moral prescriptions, but the implications of his worldview.

What Nietzsche does deny us is the sure footed ground of a stable metaphysical substrate in which we can anchor our beliefs and which serves to vouchsafe the certainty of our convictions.

Right - which effectively redefines 'judgment' to mean 'dominance.'
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]

The nihilists can't win. (3.00 / 3) (#148)
by it certainly is on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 01:40:26 PM EST

Life is a zero-sum game. Whatever the nihilists win, they equally lose. The same applies to politics, just taunt your opponents by emphasising their mortality.

A rudderless ship is also a dangerous thing.

Is this suitably vague and profoundish? Thanks.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

as soon as someone starts talking about 'values' (none / 0) (#114)
by Battle Troll on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 06:57:48 PM EST

You know it's because he wants to appeal to prejudices.
--
Skarphedinn was carrying the axe with which he had killed Thrainn Sigfusson and which he called 'Battle Troll.'
Njal's Saga, ca 1280 AD
[ Parent ]
Banning the Bible, et al (2.44 / 9) (#37)
by jd on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 03:21:47 AM EST

That could be fun. Which one? I think they should ban the Paulite one, as St. Paul was a lackey of the heathen Roman Empire. The Hellenistic Gnostic Bible should be mandatory reading across the entire Bible Belt. :) Oh, and since there's all that pressure to teach Creationism, I think it should be required that all six Genesis stories should be taught with equal weight.

(Well, it would distract them for a while. Between the apoplexy, threats of Civil War, and the occasional heart attack, most of the Extreme Right would be paralyzed on the political front for years.)

On a more serious note, I'm not 100% convinced this "advert" is real. It could be - let's face it, there's a lot of very stupid people in the world - but it's too far removed in time from most of these issues.

Nobody thinks about the "Pledge" fiasco these days. That's past, done with, forgotten. At least for the most part. Religious extremists are much more concerned with the "Gay Marriage" stuff (which, fair enough, is mentioned) and the Fight Against The Heathen Muslim Skum - well, according to the DoD, anyway. :)

The Bush Records were at least plausable. The President has repeatedly failed to account for significant portions of time, and records do keep turning up - even after all records have supposedly been found or accounted for. Also, it should be remembered that they're not proven fakes, they're merely not proven genuine with some definite questions raised.

If I were a neo-"Liberal" (as if Americans knew what a Liberal was, anyway!) and keen on inciting as many apathetic "liberals" to vote as possible, then I'd probably produce some kind of crappy, over-the-top propoganda piece that looked like it was for "the other side", but was so extreme even they couldn't stomach it.

(It has to be that strong, or you risk actually appealing to the "wrong crowd". You've gotta turn that lot off, whilst making it look as though it would to anyone on the outside. That way, you put the fear of God - or, more accurately, the fear of the US becoming an extremist hard-right-wing nationalistic theocracy in a month and a bit.)

Now, if this was France, I wouldn't be so sure. Le Penn and his National Front party are about as extreme as you can get. Trust me on this - the National Front makes the "Aryan Nation" look like a bunch of schoolkids. (The origin is much the same, only the National Front - as the name suggests - is also savagely nationalistic. The idea that they might run an advert that no sane person would believe (or even comprehend) in an effort to mobilise supporters is very believable.

The scary thing is, in France they often get 15-20% of the vote, sometimes more. They have effective control over some areas. Picture "Aryan Nation" representitives as Governers of a couple of States and with a decent fraction of the Senate.

America has some really scary extremists - well, one of them lives in the White House! - but it seems unlikely they would invest in something that could backfire badly. They got pretty badly burned with that "Moral Majority" stuff, and that probably still stings. They're probably no cleaner now than then, and they would be unlikely to risk some "liberal" Investigative Journalist poking around. Not in an election this close (in time and in votes).

If this had been earlier - closer to the time of the incidents, possibly around the time that Kerry was playing up his Vietnam heroism, though probably during the time all the Democratic candidates were slugging it out - yeah, I could accept it as likely. Neoconservatives grabbing media attention from the Democrats, spiking their selection process, and confusing the issues... Yeah, that would probably have worked very effectively. We certainly wouldn't be in such a close race now.

The timing is just all wrong. At least, to be effective. It could be that Neoconservatives really are that stupid. In which case, Democrat or Liberal sympathisers in the Bible Belt need to fight this with ridicule and shame - the two weapons the Neoconservatives are most vulnerable to, as those are the weapons with which they have been disciplined all their life.

Ridicule should not attack their message. That would just annoy them. Ridicule should attack key people that Neoconservatives look to as role-models. Same with the shame. All it would take is for a couple of good scandals to break out, over some idolized figure, and the Extreme Right will not be able to form a cohesive voting bloc.

That's the secret behind their tactics, and the tactics of any other spin-doctor. Break your opponent's power to form a voting bloc, and give your own supporters an issue to solidify around, giving you a voting bloc of your own.

This is not about democracy (which doesn't exist in the US anyway) - this is about how large a bloc you can build, and how small a bloc your opponent has left.

Of course, such tactics would largely die off, if America switched to a Proportional Representation system of Government. Why? Because nobody would have a bloc large enough to threaten anyone else. Power would be much more evenly distributed. In consequence, the objective becomes that of building a consensus, rather than destroying an opponent.

Naturally, as America favours competition over cooperation, the US will stick with the two parties beating each other (and the nation) to death with spiked clubs. Argument wins power, agreement threatens it. So there's absolutely no incentive to play nice, or even by the rules.

it's real (3.00 / 6) (#38)
by Wah on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 03:32:37 AM EST

On a more serious note, I'm not 100% convinced this "advert" is real. It could be - let's face it, there's a lot of very stupid people in the world - but it's too far removed in time from most of these issues.

Washington--Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National Committee warns West Virginia voters that the Bible will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.

The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."

---

The RNC also is running radio ads in several states urging people to register to vote. "There is a line drawn in America today," one ad says. "On one side are the radicals trying to uproot our traditional values and our culture. They're fighting to hijack the institution of marriage, plotting to legalize partial birth abortion, and working to take God out of the pledge of allegiance and force the worst of Hollywood on the rest of America." "Are you on their side of the line?" the ad asks before making the plea to "support conservative Republican candidates."

[source - AP]
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]
Ummm... Typing up words that look like (none / 1) (#52)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 09:43:49 AM EST

a press release does not constitute proof.

Please refer to the CBS memos controversy for evidence of this.

If you want me to believe the ad is real, you will have to provide more than a massively jpegged photoshop and an unsourced cut-and-paste.

  1. Where did you read this.
  2. Why should we believe them?
You need to answer both these questions.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]
please see linked comment (none / 0) (#67)
by Wah on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:52:18 AM EST

[source - AP]

As to 2)

"The Associated Press has won 47 Pulitzer Prizes, more than any other news organization in categories for which it can compete. The AP has won 19 Pulitzer Prizes for writing and 28 Pulitzer Prizes for pictures."

1) The Internet.
--
umm, holding, holding...
[ Parent ]

Doh! Missed that. (none / 1) (#88)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:51:14 PM EST

Sorry.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]
2nd source of AP (none / 1) (#70)
by lurker4hire on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 11:04:36 AM EST

If you, like me, weren't entirely certain who beliefnet was, and didn't necessarily trust that they hadn't just made up the article and put 'from Associate Press' at the top, here's a 2nd source for the same article.

ABCnews.com

[ Parent ]

Funny (none / 0) (#39)
by kreyg on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 04:32:44 AM EST

I'm pretty sure at least two of those things are about ensuring that the values of some are not imposed on the values of the individual.

Oh well.


There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the chronicler's mind. - Douglas Adams

My religious friends have confusion over marriage (3.00 / 9) (#45)
by lukme on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 07:51:10 AM EST

They don't seem to be able to get that there are 2 concepts of marriage - a legal definition of marriage and a religious definition of marriage. Unfortunately, the same word is used for both.




-----------------------------------
It's awfully hard to fly with eagles when you're a turkey.
Precisely the problem. (3.00 / 5) (#98)
by jmzero on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:21:41 PM EST

I think the government needs to get out of the business of "marriage" altogether - make it clear exactly what they're legislating about.  People should be able to decide for themselves whether they're "married" arbitrarily (or in accordance with their religion).  If their religion says they have to have a legal union at the same time, then that's fine.  If their religion says they can't get married because they're both men, then they probably want to find a new religion anyway.

Meanwhile, the law should define a union with more or less the same rules as there are now - but never call this thing marriage.  Government shouldn't touch marriage any more than it touches baptism or communion.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Exactly... (3.00 / 3) (#105)
by Gooba42 on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 03:27:11 PM EST

I'm in total agreement here. I've been saying for awhile now that "marriage" isn't, or shouldn't be, a legal term.

For legal purposes they should all be civil unions and let the married or not married fall to the persons involved.

There are contingents on both sides who oppose this though. There are gay rights groups who claim that to change the terminology is to deal some semantic blow against their equal rights. On the other end there are the people who don't believe in a separation of Church and State and believe that the legal definition of marriage should be merged with the Christian religious definition.

[ Parent ]

Proposal For New "Marriage" Term: (2.50 / 2) (#137)
by CheeseburgerBrown on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 08:42:40 AM EST

"Fuckulation Friends."

It covers the entire spectrum with the one common element to all romantic unions: the desire to do it.

Granted, it does put some pressure on sluts, bohemians and other morally loose persons who engage in unfettered sexual congress with virtual strangers, but -- they're a creative bunch. I'm sure they'll come up with something.

In the meantime, I'm now referring to all married persons, straight or bent, as Fuckulation Friends. Join me, and together we shall start a movement that will change history forever.


___
If you can read this signature clearly, you are sitting too close to your monitor.
[ Parent ]
Except (3.00 / 2) (#167)
by MrLarch on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:40:56 PM EST

Since when has a "civil union" which isn't recognized by a church as a "marriage" ever been about sex? A more apt name would be "Filing Jointly Friends".

[ Parent ]
See: "Fuck Buddies" (none / 1) (#190)
by Wah on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 02:56:21 AM EST

..as often as you feel like it...
--
IHBT
[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 1) (#173)
by Big Sexxy Joe on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 07:23:41 PM EST

Most religous people find such complex concepts confusing.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
[ Parent ]
So, how does this compare with Democratic tactics? (2.57 / 7) (#50)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 09:39:48 AM EST

Looking at that flier - which of those statements is factually wrong?

Next question: how does this compare with Democrats spamming college kids with the claim that Bush is planning to draft them?

Which is really great, since the bills mentioned in the spam were introduced by the Democrats.

Interesting tactic, introducing legislation then claiming that it's your opponent's idea.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort

None of the worded statements are wrong (none / 0) (#51)
by Nursie on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 09:42:50 AM EST

But the very strong pictorial statement - a picture of The Bible with "BANNED" stamped on the cover sends a pretty shocking message. That's what isn't true.

You may argue that this is metaphor, but I would argue that it doesn't matter, in fact I would argue for USian politicians to STFU and start thinking about something other than mudslinging.

Meta Sigs suck.

[ Parent ]
What, really? (1.50 / 6) (#54)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 09:56:02 AM EST

Democrats aren't trying to ban the bible from public spaces?

Kids dont' have to be afraid about taking their bibles to school and all that?

I'm sure this new Democratic position will come as a great relief to the hundreds of millions of christians in this country.

I particularly enjoy your last sentence since it would appear that you aren't a "USian" but somehow think you have more right to an opinion about American politics than American politicians do.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]

Misleading (1.66 / 3) (#65)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:48:39 AM EST

No, Democrats aren't trying to "ban the Bible" from any type of space. What some people (and not just liberals) are trying to do is remove endorsements of a specific religion from government property, as required by the first amendment. You are free to read a bible in a park, courthouse, DMV, or public restroom.

Your links are misleading. They have nothing to do with "bringing the Bible to school," except the one Louisiana story which seems resolved, since the school backed down. School-sponsored Christian clubs are, and should be, banned. Students are free to meet after school hours and organize their own clubs. Students are free to bring the bible to school.

The "hundreds of millions of Christians" would do well to understand the first amendment. I believe most of them do, and it is a very vocal, assertive minority who makes these ridiculous statements such as "our legal system is based on the ten commandments." Is that right? Which law is it that makes it a crime to dishonor your parents?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

But Muslim prayers in school are OK! (none / 1) (#85)
by Skywise on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:39:52 PM EST

link

[ Parent ]
Well (1.33 / 3) (#89)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:56:04 PM EST

Of course you didn't mention that the prayer was part of a lesson plan. And why don't you mention this relevant fact? Do you think that prayer in schools should be treated the same whether it's part of a lesson or part of religious indoctrination of students? I'm also curious: As a resolution to this hypocrisy, would you rather have Muslim prayer banned or all prayer allowed? (Or possibly just Christian prayer allowed, if you're into that sort of thing)

I disagree with the judge's decision, but you are also being deliberately misleading. Just like porkchop, and just like the Arkansas mailing.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

ROTFL! (3.00 / 3) (#92)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:05:35 PM EST

Of course you didn't mention that the prayer was part of a lesson plan.

That makes it better!?! When teachers regularly chastise students for even mentioning Jesus in the classroom, it's somehow okay for the teacher to instruct the children in a Muslim prayer?

Flip this on it's head for a second. What would happen if the Philadelphia school system made the rosary part of a lesson plan? How long would it be before the first law suit was filed?

I'd bet there would be a suit filed before the first class was actually held.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]

I didn't say it was OK (1.00 / 2) (#94)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:10:59 PM EST

If you bothered to read before running your mouth, you'd see that I agree with you on this one. The teacher was stupid, and the court was wrong. The rosary should also not be allowed. I ask you the same question. Would you rather allow teaching prayer in all religions, ban teaching prayer in all religions, or only allow Christian prayer?

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
You sure have an odd way of looking at the world (2.50 / 2) (#101)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:31:43 PM EST

Perhaps I did misunderstand your previous post, but that only means that I fail to understand you at all.

The most basic human right is the right to be who you are without deception. Yes, I think each student should be free to bring their own culture and religion with them to the classroom - which you seem to find objectionable, as do many Democrats as I pointed out with my "misleading" links.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]

That is absurd (2.50 / 2) (#129)
by jnana on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 01:57:56 AM EST

The most basic human right is the right to be who you are without deception.

Paedophiles, sociopaths, racists, etc.--it is their basic human right to be who they are without deception? People whose 'sacrament' is the flesh of newborn babies?

No, not every impulse, every belief, every behavior should be allowed and condoned. We desperately need some kind of restrictions on what people are allowed to express.

And no, I am not trying to equate Christianity with any of those things--just observing that you are very careless with your words.

[ Parent ]

Gotta admit (none / 0) (#160)
by Sgt York on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 04:59:30 PM EST

I made the same mistake. I was getting started on a long "WTF? you think this is OK??? You MORON!" post, but then I saw the last line. Helps to read the whole thing through.

Anyway, I think it's OK to teach about prayer, and the ideas and attitudes towards it in varying religions, but actually requiring that kids do so is screwed up. Frankly, I don't want kids being forced to pray to any God, not even mine. Forcing acts about such a personal decision as religion is about as wrong as it gets.

Oh, and as for inclusiveness, all the major specific religions (Hindu, Islam, Christianity, Judaism), and then the classifications of the minor ones (pantheism, nature worship, etc). I guess you could teach atheism, too, but there's not a lot you could say....


There is a reason for everything. Sometimes, that reason just sucks.
[ Parent ]

Separation of church and state. (none / 1) (#96)
by Skywise on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:19:46 PM EST

You say:
"What some people (and not just liberals) are trying to do is remove endorsements of a specific religion from government property, as required by the first amendment. "

It would seem to me that forcing children to say Muslim prayer is an... endorsement of religion?

I didn't mislead anybody.  The judge decreed that leading a class in Muslim Prayer is OK when it's a learning thing.

Ergo, it shouldn't be that hard to lead non-denominational prayers on a daily basis?  Because you're teaching the children respect for a greater life?  Or how about rotating between various religious denominations (including Wicca) for morning devotionals?

The fact of the matter is that there's a distinct bias in US society for disallowing anything Christian but allowing all other forms of religions as it suits the PC crowd.

I don't care one way or the other (actually I'd prefer to see a greater inclusiveness of religious education in school so long as one religion isn't endorsed over another) but you've got to be consistent.


[ Parent ]

I've already responded to this elsewhere (1.50 / 2) (#100)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:28:23 PM EST

but you really need to look over those links again, since only one is about "school sponsored" activities. These links are neither inappropriate nor misleading.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]
Uh huh (3.00 / 4) (#73)
by mcc on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 11:16:47 AM EST

Democrats aren't trying to ban the bible from public spaces?

No, they are not. They are trying to ban the government from taking actions which constitute an endorsement of religion.

I'm disgusted by the links you have there, but I don't see any reason these people have sway within the general Democrat base. One might as well say Christians want to kill gays. The four bullet points are definitely part of the mainstream democrat platform at the moment. Banning children from bringing bibles to public schools is something a couple isolated atheist extremists is doing, and these people will lose as soon as things hit the courts every single time.

[ Parent ]

Criticism (none / 1) (#77)
by antizeus on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 11:35:11 AM EST

I applaud your recent attempts at trolling, but if you're going to make an outrageous claim about banning the bible, then you're probably better off simply making it unsubstantiated. As it is, you posted links that have nothing to do with banning the bible, which leaves you more open to people calling you on your bullshit than if you hadn't done so.

Nevertheless, I encourage you to continue your efforts. Perhaps one day you will become a great troll.

P.S. That comment where you appear to get so agitated that you confuse the author (Wah) with someone else (GenerationY) was nice, though it is perhaps more appropriate for someone that is role-playing a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist nutbag than a troll. Actually, now that I think about it, you may be actually doing the former instead of the latter. If that is the case, then ignore the first part of this comment.

Have a nice day!
-- $SIGNATURE
[ Parent ]

LoL. I take it you didn't read the links then (1.80 / 5) (#87)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:48:55 PM EST

since everyone of them was about banning the bible or another aspect of Christianity from a public forum where it used to be allowed.

How is that not "banning"?

And, no, I never troll.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]

I read them (1.66 / 3) (#93)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:08:11 PM EST

Yeah, L-O-L dude, I read your stupid links. 4 out of 5 of them were about school-sponsored prayer clubs, which are unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court. Recently upheld in the Santa Fe decision. Oh, and what of that pesky "liberal" Supreme Court that keeps "banning" religion and "legislating from the bench?" 7 out of 9 of 'em were appointed by Republicans. Oh boy, the Liberals sure are gunning to ban the Bible.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
Yeah you sure do read good. (2.16 / 6) (#99)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 02:24:44 PM EST

Since the first one is explicitly about an attempted bible ban, the second was about school sponsored clubs, the third was about a student sponsored club, the fourth was about another student sponsored club, and the fifth was an overview of the whole situation.

Glad to see that reading for comprehension class is working out for you.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]

"or another aspect of Christianity" (none / 1) (#106)
by antizeus on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 04:50:05 PM EST

Nice copout. You get called on your bullshit, and then you change the nature of your claim. Did you think you'd get away with it?
-- $SIGNATURE
[ Parent ]
IHBT (3.00 / 6) (#107)
by antizeus on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 05:26:00 PM EST

I'm still not convinced you're not trolling (or role playing), but I'm bored and will specifically address your links, which you seem to think that I did not read.

Link #1

Teacher attempts to ban Bible, principal does nothing, superintendent corrects misguided action.

Number of bibles banned: 1 0

Link #2

Classes which teach "the Bible as religious truth" are forbidden as a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Number of bibles banned: 0

Link #3

A student group is told to change its name and eliminate a requirement that officers subscribe to some belief system.

Number of bibles banned: 0

Link #4

Many students are joining Bible study clubs, which are allowed. Some people think these clubs are a bad idea.

Number of bibles banned: 0

Link #5

Government schools are allowed to teach about the Bible as (for example) literature, but are reluctant to do so. Some schools may be crossing the line when teaching about Islam. Some guidelines are given regarding whether teaching about a particular religion may be unconstitutional.

Number of bibles banned: 0

OH MY GOD THEY"RE BANNING THE BIBLE!!!@!!!!
-- $SIGNATURE
[ Parent ]

You're funny. (1.33 / 6) (#127)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 11:26:16 PM EST

Nothing like arguing that because attempts to completely ban bibles from public schools have so far failed that, therefore, no one is actually attempting to ban bibles. I particularly like how you seem to consider "being thrown out of the school because of your religious beliefs" isn't a ban.

You should try that logic on the gun rights crowd. See if they buy it.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]

IHBT again (3.00 / 2) (#141)
by antizeus on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 11:20:43 AM EST

Let's take a look at your original message.
Democrats aren't trying to ban the bible from public spaces?
You then proceed to provide five links, four of which have nothing to do with banning the Bible, one of which mentions some stupid asshole (who managed to get into the teaching profession) that told a kid not to bring a bible to school, and got rightly smacked down by the superintendent.

Does that teacher set the agenda for the Democratic party? Was that teacher even a Democrat? Who knows? Do you?

Here's a fact that you may find useful: there are a lot of stupid assholes in the world. Some of them become teachers. I don't know if you went to school, but if you did, there's a pretty good chance that at least one of your teachers was an idiot. I know some of mine were. These people are bound to do moronic things. Apparently in your worldview, this translates to a campaign on the part of a major political party to ban a religious text. Get a grip.
-- $SIGNATURE
[ Parent ]

Talking of the gun rights crowd, (none / 1) (#224)
by it certainly is on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 08:24:36 PM EST

I'd be proud to kick out any kid who "exercised his second amendment rights" in my classroom. Keep your fucking guns out of my fucking school, you little psychopath.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

None = "not one" (none / 0) (#61)
by killmepleez on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:37:01 AM EST



__
"I instantly realized that everything in my life that I thought was unfixable was totally fixable - except for having just jumped."
--from "J
[ Parent ]
i love politicians, don't you? (none / 1) (#113)
by pyramid termite on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 06:36:30 PM EST

Looking at that flier - which of those statements is factually wrong?

it's not a matter of facts ... it's what the facts are being manipulated to look like ... that somehow the government failing to institute certain interpretations of the bible is a banning of it

Next question: how does this compare with Democrats spamming college kids with the claim that Bush is planning to draft them?

and that is an even more cynical and blatant manipulation of voters and their perception

won't they be fucking shocked if kerry becomes president and starts the draft anyway? ... the wailing and gnashing of teeth will be something to behold


On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]

You're correct (none / 0) (#252)
by rogun on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 03:08:04 AM EST

However, it's a bill which neither Democrats nor Republicans currently support. The few Democrats who support it do so because they believe members of our military should be represented by all socio-economic classes and this includes members at the infantry level. The reason why more people believe that Bush is more likely to reinstate the draft than Kerry is because Bush has a more ambitious goal in Iraq than Kerry. Kerry plans on bringing home the troops as soon as possible, whereas the Bush plan consists of maintaining a military presence in Iraq for years, if not decades, to come and using it to exert force elsewhere in the Middle-East. This is the Neo-Con plan and, by all indications, the Neo-Cons will be even more powerful if Bush is re-elected. But let's look at our options in Iraq under a second Bush Presidency:
  1. Bush pulls us out of Iraq and brings all the troops home. This seems highly unlikely, but Robert Novak apparently doesn't think so. According to Novak, insiders in the Bush Administration are implying that Bush will bring all troops home after the election. I'd like to think that Novak has no a clue, but Novak has proven many times that he has does have close ties to White House insiders, such as when he received the name of an undercover CIA agent from a White House insider.
  2. Bush keeps troops at the current level. This is highly unlikely because we're already losing the war with the current number of troops and even many Republicans are calling for more troops. In today's Washington Post, the former overseer of Iraq, Paul Bremer, talks about the need for more troops and the mistake of not doing it sooner.
  3. Bush talks our allies into adding troops to help. I don't really think I need to explain the implausibility of this. But I will note that if Latham wins the Australian election on Oct 9th, he's already promised to bring Aussie troops home and there are rumors of others getting out soon as well.
  4. Bush encourages more Americans to serve. While this might provide a short-term impetus for Americans to sign-up, I doubt that it's a long-term solution and this would only contribute to Bush's decreasing popularity.
  5. Bush encourages the Pentagon to hire more private soldiers (e.g. mercenaries.) While there are stories that many in the Bush Administration support this idea, it seems highly unlikely. We're already paying for private soldiers and it's already an unpopular, and very scary, idea; not to mention that it'll be much more costly to the taxpayers.
  6. Bush has a peace rally with the insurgents, they all sit around smoking from a peace pipe filled with canabis, and work out their differences peacefully. Do I need to say more?
  7. Finally, Bush reinstates the draft. While this may come as a surprise to some, it may be the only real option under a second Bush Presidency, other than bringing the troops home now, as Novak suggests.
In contrast, Kerry is much more likely to get help from our allies. The fact of the matter is that it won't be an easy sell, but one of the main reasons few of our allies want to help out now is because they never wanted the war in the first place and because they weren't given any power when Bush did finally ask them to help. Our allies will recognize that Kerry is willing to listen to their concerns and that he's willing to work with them to stabilize Iraq. As a result, this is an incentive for them to provide help in Iraq and to normalize relations with the USA. In contrast, why would any of our allies agree to help after being ignored and called names, such as "Old Europe?"

[ Parent ]
Slight Liberal Bias, anyone? (1.57 / 7) (#57)
by dasunt on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:15:54 AM EST

I don't see why you need to rephrase the pamplet saying "partial birth abortion" as D&C.

Nor do I see a need for the additional comment about denying rights to the 2%-7% of the population that is homosexual.

Report the story, don't elaborate. Most of us are adults here, we can process the original message and figure out if its good or bad.

-1 from me because of this.



Uh (1.50 / 2) (#60)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:35:39 AM EST

It's an op-ed.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
It is now (none / 0) (#63)
by porkchop_d_clown on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 10:41:15 AM EST

it wasn't before.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]
Not D&C (none / 1) (#151)
by rpresser on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 02:46:38 PM EST

D&C is a much different procedure than "Intact Dilation And Extraction" aka "partial birth abortion" aka "pointless hot button issue".  D&C's are most commonly performed on women who are not even pregnant (and very often on women who <u>cannot</u> become pregnant).
------------
"In terms of both hyperbolic overreaching and eventual wrongness, the Permanent [Republican] Majority has set a new, and truly difficult to beat, standard." --rusty
[ Parent ]
honest bias (none / 1) (#191)
by Wah on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 03:10:49 AM EST

that turns out to be liberal.

I didn't make the scale, but I'm not going to try and lie about where an objective observer would put me on it.

Honesty should count for something in an argument, no?

FYI, POMA = Pulled Outta My Ass.  Useful numbers to have around, just don't internalize them, if you know what I mean.
--
IHBT
[ Parent ]

+1, is pissing off all the right people (2.78 / 19) (#71)
by codejack on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 11:05:36 AM EST

I love it when the people in favor of banning my favorite books, movies, etc. whine about my not wanting them to force my children to pray to their god, read their bible, etc. It's a double standard, and they need to be called on it.

We will never get anywhere in this country until everyone involved acknowledges that we all have the same rights; You are not special because you are a christian.


Please read before posting.

wtf? (3.00 / 2) (#81)
by thekubrix on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 12:37:27 PM EST

No one is banning a fucken thing. But allowing prayer in school is simply outrageous,....hello, Seperation of Church and State? Do you know the main reason the country was founded on? Remember the pilgrims? Church and State DO NOT mix, and thinking otherwise is NOT American.

Love it or leave it pal.....

[ Parent ]

lol (2.85 / 7) (#103)
by GenerationY on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 03:20:43 PM EST

Come to England. We have no seperation of church and state at all (the Queen is the head of both). We're all terrible atheists here to the extent that Blair was advised to play down his own faith in case it made him unelectable.

Funny how it works out isn't it. I have no idea how or why.

[ Parent ]

Another irony... (2.66 / 3) (#140)
by lurker4hire on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 11:07:54 AM EST

... is that the political system explictly designed to not trust the politically powerful and enforce strict accountablility (american division of powers + checks & balances) has turned into the least accountable (within the 'democratic' sphere) and the near exclusive domain of politically powerful families.

While the political system that evolved out of priviledged powers reluctantly acceding to rights demands from an ever expanding base of franchised citizens tends to be more accessible, accountable (in comparison only), and generally less prone to overt corruption.

Yet another example of unintended consequences, you can design a system for one thing but never underestimate the ability of people to use it for something completely contrary to the original design goal.

[ Parent ]

Um? (none / 1) (#221)
by codejack on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 07:40:21 PM EST

I think you've got me on the wrong side of this argument: I am in favor of separation of church and state, and was pointing out that the same people who are aghast at my choice of reading material want to force my children to pray and read the bible, which I personally find distasteful. But I'm not trying to ban the bible, while they would happily ban Catch-22, The Catcher in the Rye, and Ulysses.

BTW, using the pilgrims as exemplars of separation of church and state may not make for the best argument /grin


Please read before posting.

[ Parent ]
banned bible not farfetched (3.00 / 2) (#84)
by karb on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 01:13:11 PM EST

The Lion and Lamb project decries violent videogames for children and keeps trying to get legislation to ban selling the stuff to kids.

They would say, after this, that it's just closing a 'loophole' to make it illegal to let kids have access to the games at all. And then, it's just closing another 'loophole' to ban children from accessing any violent media at all ... like, say, the bible.

Now, that would be unconstitutional ... now. But that's one of the reasons conservatives are into strict constructionists. Fifty years ago the constitution did not say that abortion was a constitutional right. Thirty years ago it suddenly did. Right now it's unconsitutional to do what the Lion and Lamb project advocate. But what interesting things might the supreme court find in the constitution 20 years from now?
--
Who is the geek who would risk his neck for his brother geek?

IIRC... (3.00 / 2) (#115)
by ShadowNode on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 07:03:31 PM EST

The Roe vs. Wade case found not that the constitution protected abortion specifically, but that it didn't allow for the government to stick it's nose in the issue. Personally I don't see why it matters. Your government doesn't seem to have a problem violating it's constitution over marijuana, so why is this any different?

[ Parent ]
Strict constructionists? (none / 0) (#174)
by shinshin on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 07:25:25 PM EST

But that's one of the reasons conservatives are into strict constructionists.

Yeah, Republicans are great constructionists when they are trying to screw women and minorities. However, they do seem to be able to get pretty creative when it comes to claiming that the Constitution grants them the right to carry around grenade launchers.

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

No need for creativity (none / 1) (#179)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 08:15:59 PM EST

Unless you've found some other, hidden definition for the words "shall not be infringed."

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]
About hidden definitions... (none / 0) (#188)
by jreilly on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 01:33:12 AM EST

I'd like to know what you think about a "Well regulated militia".

Somewhat less seriously, I'd like to point out that grenade launchers are clearly artillery, not arms, and hence the 2nd Amendment is quite non-applicable.

Oooh, shiny...
[ Parent ]
It's not a qualifier (none / 1) (#208)
by CaptainSuperBoy on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 02:23:00 PM EST

The first portion of the 2nd amendment doesn't qualify the second portion in any way. "A well regulated militia" is justification for the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but it doesn't say you have to be in a militia. The second part is the only part that matters. Either way, the militia includes every able-bodied man between 18 and 40-something, according to the definition at the time.

Good luck with that one, because "grenade launchers" as included in the assault weapons ban, are now legal again. I think the attachment that got banned was actually a general-purpose launcher for flares, large shells, etc. I'm not 100% sure on that one but I think the grenade launcher ban was criticized for being worded deceptively.

--
jimmysquid.com - I take pictures.
[ Parent ]

+1 FP ! Akansea is God's Country (2.00 / 3) (#110)
by SaintPort on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 06:14:30 PM EST

and any PR is good PR.

Sure, the ad is way over the top, but it makes the point...

Loads of Arkansans vote Democrat out of tradition while their values are more accurately represented by the Republican Party. The ad is a wake-up call.

P.S. Arkansas is going to pass a Marriage Amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman (just like Missouri and Louisiana). You heard it here first.

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

It's ridiculous (3.00 / 2) (#135)
by curien on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 06:24:24 AM EST

It's just as ridiculous as that ad comparing Hitler to Bush. That ad, too, was "way over the top but made the point". I suppose you support it as well? Do you really believe sensationalism of the Weekly World News variety is good for American politics?

I disagree with you on a lot of fundamental points, but I've always admired your dedication to sound reasoning if not to rational axioms (not meant as a put-down... what's so great about rationality, anyway?). If you truly support this, I'm afraid I must re-assess my opinion.

--
This sig is umop apisdn.
[ Parent ]

hmmm... do I support it... (none / 0) (#178)
by SaintPort on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 08:14:09 PM EST

...if I were in the advertising council of the RNC, would I have helped put his together, endorsed it?

hmmmm...

no.

Do you really believe sensationalism of the Weekly World News variety is good for American politics?

No... but it does spice it up a mite bit, don't you think?

I disagree with you on a lot of fundamental points,

cool

but I've always admired your dedication to sound reasoning if not to rational axioms

Thank you, that's very gracious.

(not meant as a put-down... what's so great about rationality, anyway?).

#-P

<><

--
Search the Scriptures
Start with some cheap grace...Got Life?

[ Parent ]

What ad comparing Bush to Hitler? (none / 0) (#253)
by rogun on Tue Oct 05, 2004 at 03:17:14 AM EST

It's just as ridiculous as that ad comparing Hitler to Bush. I remember a couple of videos being uploaded to Moveon.org's contest for an advertisement, but I don't remember an ad ever being created from it. In contrast, I do remember an ad on the front page of the Bush/Cheney website that drew comparisons of John Kerry to Hitler. Was that the one you meant? As someone who has lived in Arkansas, I can tell that there are many conservative Democrats, but it's wrong to say that Republicans represent their views or values. Is a 450 billion deficit conservative? The days of the GOP converting yellow dog Democrats to Conservatives are over. While these Democrats may not agree with the more liberal wing of the Democrat Party, they don't agree with Republicans either. If you still don't believe it, then how do you explain Arkansas having only one Republican Congressman?

[ Parent ]
Yeah... (none / 1) (#122)
by NaCh0 on Thu Sep 23, 2004 at 09:22:20 PM EST

Democrats are going to ban the bible like GWB is going to reinstate the draft.

--
K5: Your daily dose of socialism.
he won't reinstate the draft because... (3.00 / 2) (#128)
by jnana on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 01:33:42 AM EST

...it's so much easier to just force the already drafted to extend their tours (perhaps indefinitely).

If you can't reinstate the draft, but you need tens of thousands more young men to fight your war for "the new American century," why not just make all those who already signed up for a limited tour do double or triple time?

The ends justify the means, right? I mean, we disregarded international law and the opinions of our peers with less vested interests in order to invade Iraq, but that was of course justified because they had weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes, and there were clear and certain links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda.

I will grant the members of President Bush's adminstration one thing though: they are very crafty. Their doublespeak and utter disregard for openness and honesty put them in very rare company. The Chinese government and Orwell's Oceania come to mind, but even they have/had their limits.

[ Parent ]

Seems mostly accurate, isn't it? (3.00 / 4) (#138)
by sonovel on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 10:41:45 AM EST

The ban the bible thing is of course over the top. But let's look at the specific claims:

1) Removing 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The first is the hardest to justify. Certainly many liberals want to remove this. But would they really try hard to legaslate this? But on the "judicial activism" front, it is a correct statement. Some people are trying to use lawsuits to force this. And if politicians appoint judges, this statement does have some support.

2) Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent.

This is absolutely something that liberal politicians have proposed as law. So the ad is absolutely correct on this one.

3) Overturning the ban on the hideous procedure known [to doctors as Dilate and Extract].

Another knockout. This is absolutely a true statement. Proponents of abortion are working very hard to get this law overturned.

4) Allowing same-sex marriages.

Another slightly iffy thing. Many liberals want this, but politicians don't want to expend significal political capital to fight for it. So this is a mostly true statement, but not a knockout.

So, besides the hyperbole (never seen from the other side, right?), isn't this a fairly accurate ad?

Let's analyze: (none / 1) (#155)
by RadiantMatrix on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 03:30:59 PM EST

So, besides the hyperbole (never seen from the other side, right?), isn't this a fairly accurate ad?
The issue is that the ad has two serious flaws: it suggests that all or most liberals want these actions, and it equates that with banning the Bible

So, let's take a look:

  1. Removing 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance.

    One man stepped forward and sued to force a school to stop requiring the use of 'under God' in the Pledge. This is quite a bit different than trying to remove the phrase. From an informal poll of Liberal associates, it would seem that most would favor making it optional but not requiring its removal. Many Liberals also find no issue with the phrase "under God" since they feel it does not promote a specific religion.

  2. Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent.

    Liberal politicians have proposed this. The big question is whether it is something most liberals support. I strongly doubt it. Also, the "no parental consent" laws usually only apply to situations where a medical professional believes it would be harmful to notify/seek the permission of the parents. Whether that's a reasonable compromise or not is beyond my scope here, but the position is certainly not as extreme as the flyer suggests.

  3. Overturning the ban on the hideous procedure known [to doctors as Dilate and Extract].

    While there are pro-choice advocates that wish to repeal partial-birth abortion, the ban on partial-birth procedures is something liberals and conservatives, pro-choice and pro-life movements alike tend to agree on. There is a small pro-choice contingent that doesn't like that law, and they don't speak for the rest of the pro-choice group.

  4. Allowing same-sex marriages.

    This is misleading. Most liberals aren't looking for an explicit allowance of same-sex marriage. What they are looking for is equal treatment under the law. Since marriage carries legal benefits, the simple argument is that any couple willing to make the same legal commitments as a marriage contract should be allowed to do so and reap the legal benefits. Some places choose to implement this by the name of "Civil Union", and polls show that most liberals support Civil Unions while they are divided on same-sex marriages.

The flyer is very misleading. Add to the above the suggestion that "liberals want to ban the Bible" and you have an outright claim of misleading advertising. The flyer makes the flawed assertion that liberals who want public policy to be acceptable even to those who don't follow the Bible would actively subvert Christianity.

"Ban" is a very active word, and it suggests that liberals want to deprive Christians of their right to free worship. In fact, liberals merely wish to assert that conservative Christians should not legislate their religious beliefs, thereby forcing them on others.

I find the campaign, especially if backed by the RNC, to be abhorrent: and I consider myself a conservative-leaning moderate.


"In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law

[ Parent ]
Wrong (3.00 / 2) (#156)
by ak1 on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 03:45:47 PM EST

Many Liberals also find no issue with the phrase "under God" since they feel it does not promote a specific religion.

It doesn't promote a specific religion, but it discriminates against polytheistic religions, since it assumes that there exists only one God (and there are religions with more than one God). It also discriminates agains Atheists, as they don't believe in any god.



[ Parent ]
So narrow-minded. (none / 1) (#242)
by RadiantMatrix on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 11:08:52 AM EST

It doesn't promote a specific religion, but it discriminates against polytheistic religions, since it assumes that there exists only one God (and there are religions with more than one God). It also discriminates agains Atheists, as they don't believe in any god.
I really wish people would stop telling others what they should feel is discrimination.

I am a close friend of an atheist who feels that 'under God' in the pledge isn't discrimination, since the Pledge is optional anyhow.  Tons of case precedent indicates that children can not be compelled to recite it, so he doesn't really care as long as it isn't compulsory.

I'm personally a member of a polytheistic religion, and I don't find 'under God' offensive either.  Partially because it is unlikely anyone would even notice if I changed it to 'under gods'.  Partially, because the government isn't endorsing a specific religion by having the phrase in an optional recitation.  We are still free to omit that phrase if we recite the pledge personally.

And, to stem rhetoric of "schools do compel kids" and "kids aren't equipped to make those choices", I refused to say the Pledge all through school, from Kindergarten on through highschool.  It was an issue precisely twice, and was resolved quickly and in my favor both times.

Once, in 1st grade, and it was resolved simply by my telling the principal "my right to free speech includes my right to be silent".  I may not have understood the complete meaning of that idea, but enough to know I didn't have to say anything I didn't want to.

And again in the 10th grade, where a teacher stopped the class to "make an example" of me for not saying the pledge by trying to force me to lead it.  The teacher was given administrative leave and I was given a written apology.  All I did was explain exactly what happened to the administrator when I was sent to see him -- I didn't even need to assert my rights, he saw the problem immediately.

So, while some school somewhere might try to compel it, it isn't some kind of systemic compulsory rite.

"In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law

[ Parent ]

ok (none / 1) (#243)
by Danse on Mon Sep 27, 2004 at 12:54:05 PM EST

I'm against the words "under God" in the pledge because, IMO, it violates the separation clause. Yes, it doesn't promote a specific religion, but it promotes religion in general, which should not be a function of the government. Look at why the words were added to the pledge in the first place. It was to attempt to reinforce the idea that the US is a God-fearing society, as a contrast to the godless commies we were busy fighting against. Same thing goes for the "In God We Trust" on our money. It should be done away with as well.




An honest debate between Bush and Kerry
[ Parent ]
Fair enough. (none / 0) (#247)
by RadiantMatrix on Tue Sep 28, 2004 at 10:31:58 AM EST

I respect your opinion, of course.  The central point I'm trying to make is that being a liberal does not automatically mean wanting to remove those words from the pledge.  So, the rag published and distributed in Arkansas was deliberately misleading.

"In any sufficiently large group of people, most are idiots" - Kaa's Law

[ Parent ]
Why the pledge? (3.00 / 2) (#184)
by vrt3 on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 09:03:56 PM EST

From reading different posts here, I very much get the impression that even most people on kuro5hin are in favour of (1) the Pledge of Allegiance and (2) the inclusion of the words 'under God' in it (even though I thought that more people here are liberal than in the population in general).

I'm not trying to be offensive, in fact I'm trying not to be, but as a non-American I don't understand the whole concept of the pledge. IMO any human being should as much as possible decide for himself about his loyalties. Surely Americans can think for themselves, just like any other human being.

Especially the pledge as a morning ritual in schools is something that bothers me... to an outsider like me, it feels almost as if the kids are brainwashed before they're grown old enough to think for themselves.

On another but related note, in the classroom Bush was visiting on 9/11 there was a note on the blackboard with a text 'Learning to read is good for your country' or something to that effect (saw that while watching Fahrenheit 9/11). Promoting learning to read is a good thing of course (though I don't really understand the relevancy of such a note in kindergarten), but why the connection with 'your country'? Learning to read is a good thing for lots of reasons; acting as if the main reason is to help your country feels to me like some weird unnatural misplaced forced patriotism. Not that there's anything wrong with patriotism, but for this one time I agree with Boyzone: "Love me for a reason, let the reason be love" and not pressure from the outside.

When a man wants to murder a tiger, it's called sport; when the tiger wants to murder him it's called ferocity. -- George Bernard Shaw
[ Parent ]

The trouble with the pledge (none / 1) (#229)
by JetJaguar on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:32:02 PM EST

My problem with the pledge is that it resembles far too closely some kind of weird indoctrination chant. In fact, if my memory serves, the pledge was actually instituted in response to similar actions in Communist Russia and Nazi Germany. The rationale was that the commies and the fascists were indoctrinating their kids into "the party" so we damn well better make up our own to protect our kids from that nazi-commie mumbo-jumbo. It was bs then, and it's bs now. I mean think about it, how many 5 year olds really understand what it means in the first place. I certainly didn't know what it meant when I was first told to recite it, and I was saying it for years before I did.

[ Parent ]
Hardly (none / 1) (#176)
by shinshin on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 07:32:06 PM EST

isn't this a fairly accurate ad?

How about an ad:

GEORGE W BUSH KILLS BABIES

Absolutely, 100%, indisputably accurate. George W Bush is the Commander in Chief of the military that killed many civilians, including babies. However, would you characterize this advertisements as honest?

____
We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons --Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
[ Parent ]

Honest yes. (none / 0) (#212)
by sonovel on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 02:52:50 PM EST

Honest, yes. Fair, maybe not. Effective, almost certainly not.

And perhaps less hyperbolic than putting a picture of a bible with the word "Banned" on it.

[ Parent ]

o.k. (2.33 / 3) (#189)
by Wah on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 02:52:05 AM EST

The ban the bible thing is of course over the top.

END: discussion.
--
BEGIN: quibbling.
--

1) News update on this one. I mean really.  If they want to make it an issue like this, where the question is about whether or not Congress can declare Judicial no-go zones, I think there is a fight. Otherwise, it's just not that big a deal with a shooting war going on.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted to send the Pledge Protection Act to the full House, which is likely to take it up today. The Act - a bill that has many cosponsors - would deprive all federal courts, even the Supreme Court, of jurisdiction to hear constitutional challenges to the "under God" Pledge of Allegiance. This is only the latest attempt by Congress to force a pluralist society into a one-size-fits-all set of beliefs.

This is a remarkable violation of the separation of powers and the Establishment Clause. If the Act were to become law - and if it were, itself, to be upheld as constitutional - only state courts would be able to hear constitutional challenges to the Pledge.

2)Allowing teenagers to get abortions without parental consent.

This is absolutely something that liberal politicians have proposed as law.

Eighteen, nineteen, thirteen. So many teens.  How does one think of them all?  It is my understanding that there is usually some sense of extraneous circumstances that one has to claim as an underage 13-17 "teenager" in order to get daddy's baby out of you.  Those are the nuances that make 'Constitutional' law.  If the Hacking Precious Babies to Pieces Act (for Satan) had included a clause that said it might be o.k. to perform a certain medical procedures in the case the life of mother was at risk while pregnant, the courts would be more likely to have given it a pass.  That seems to be the stickler.  That stickler will always apply to 'legal abortions'.  It's one of the fine lines of the debate.  It doesn't hold given the current justices opinions.  I doubt the Supremes will hear it, but that's a fairly wild guess.

3)Proponents of abortion are working very hard to get this law overturned.

The more precise term is 'pro-abortion activists', but like I said, the ones actually overturning the law all seem to be federal judges.

4) There is a protection in the Constitution that this whole rigamorale is trying to work around.  I don't think it's worth it.  A legal contract in one state is valid as a legal contract in another state.  It sucks, but that's the law of the land.

Unless we change the law.  And that's just not a conservative value.  'Activist judges', indeed.

--

So, besides the hyperbole (never seen from the other side, right?), isn't this a fairly accurate ad?

Are these?

And remember, those weren't approved by the DNC (or the DLC), the above one has the RNC's return address on it.

There's more than one lesson in the 'moral relativity' text book.
--
IHBT
[ Parent ]

I'm not arguing which position is right ... (none / 0) (#200)
by sonovel on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 11:27:41 AM EST

You can argue all you want that the partial abortion ban is wrong, or that there are cases where parental consent shouldn't be needed, etc. I might even agree with you. But that isn't the point.

The point is that the ad is correct. These things are much more likely to be supported by liberal candidates. And the ad even points out that liberal politicians appoint liberal judges so your comment about judicial activism actually shows you in agreement with the ad.

I see a lot of quibbling, but all of these positions are held by many liberals and all of these positions have ended up in courts in front of judges appointed by politicians. How can anyone argue with a straight face that these positions are not held by liberals and the politicians they elect and the judges appointed by these politicians?

Certainly we can argue about all of these issues. But it is clear that electing conservatives is much more likely to make sure that these four things are handled in a different way than they would be by liberal politicians.

For the record, I don't think the pledge should exist at all, and I don't support the words "under God", but I don't think it is really that important. I am ambivalent about #2, but I do agree that some circumstances (but not all circumstances) justify it. On #3, I think there probably should be some limits on late term abortions, but early abortions should be legal and there should be big exceptions for rape and the health of the mother. As far as #4 gos, I am all for gay marriage. I see zero secular justification for disallowing it.

So I am not arguing that the conservatives are right in what they want. I am just arguing that they are correct in the statement that liberal politicians have supported (to various degrees and in various ways) all four of these things. Liberal politician support removing "under God" by appointing judges who will listen to the cases, they have worked for laws against parental consent, worked against the partial birth abortion act by appointing judges and voting against the law, and working against the "protection of marriage" ammendment and by appointing judges with a certain point-of-view.

And as a quibble, conservative and liberal are labels more than description. A true liberal really supports freedom and wants less government intrusion into people's lives. What we call liberals in the US aren't liberal by the classic definition. Much of the world uses the more classic definition, but even there liberals often support positions that are not objectively pro-freedom. And as you point out, there is an irony of conservatives using activist judges to make and break law.

[ Parent ]

sounds good (2.00 / 2) (#205)
by Wah on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 01:39:07 PM EST

there is one thing I would add.

A true liberal really supports freedom and wants less government intrusion into people's lives.

A true conservative, at least by U.S. standards, also really supports freedom and wants less government government intrusion into people's lives.

I also agree that labels can be decieving and can often be unnecessarily dividing when both sides want the same thing, but merely disagree on how best to achieve it.

cheers.
--
IHBT
[ Parent ]

A classical liberal ... (none / 0) (#210)
by sonovel on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 02:42:59 PM EST

A classical liberal is very conservative compared to the people labeled conservative and liberal in the US. But conservative to a particular viewpoint and historical perspective on government that seemingly exists almost nowhere in the world anymore.

[ Parent ]
Politics (none / 1) (#147)
by kurioszyn on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 01:20:41 PM EST

Whatever ...

It is no different than Democracts claiming that victory for Reps means burning black churches and African-Americans herded back into plantations ..


I think (none / 1) (#166)
by yolfer on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 05:30:46 PM EST

I think the difference here is that the DNC didn't send out a mass mailing claiming as such.

[ Parent ]
No. They just send out mass mailings claiming (none / 1) (#177)
by porkchop_d_clown on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 07:33:21 PM EST

that Bush is planning to draft their children.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]
No. The spam says that the draft begins next year (none / 0) (#226)
by porkchop_d_clown on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:03:16 PM EST

From the spam:
Mandatory draft for boys and girls (ages 18-26) starting June 15, 2005, is something that everyone should know about. This literally effects everyone since we all have or know children that will have to go if this bill passes.
This is a particularly vile trick - to introduce a bill into congress to reinstate the draft, then tell everyone that it's your opponent's idea to send their children off to war.

I'll tell you why I don't listen. I can only read so much of your stupid a-- b--- s--- before I lose all faith in the future of humanity and start sort
[ Parent ]
Who is the spam from? (none / 0) (#248)
by tonedevil on Wed Sep 29, 2004 at 07:19:57 PM EST

The Democrats keep trying to start legislation and then pretend like they don't know where it came from. The Republicans keep acting like they can pull troops out of their ass any time they like. Both sides are being disengenious about this.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 1) (#149)
by Millennium on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 02:17:24 PM EST

The separation between Church and State needs to be clean, and this includes using different terms where necessary. Call them civil unions or legal unions or whatever, but apply the term to all such unions, gay and straight alike.

Of course, there would have to be some sort of extra languages written in, so that any legal document mentioning marriage written before the date of this law's passing would be considered to read whatever this new term was instead. Otherwise we could be in for a dreadful mess. But as long as that's done, there's no issue.

What's the fun in being "cool" if you can't wear a sombrero? -Hobbes


gwb '04 (none / 0) (#171)
by auraslip on Fri Sep 24, 2004 at 07:08:10 PM EST

<-----voting for the apocolypse
124
Meh (3.00 / 3) (#192)
by fenix down on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 05:58:45 AM EST

Some hippies in Arkansas spend years out of their lives letting their imaginary friends delude them into thinking they aren't going to die, whereas I spend years out of my life having sex with a series of anonymous men.  I can't really get mad at anybody whose life sucks that much more than mine.

Crazy (none / 0) (#228)
by Zabe on Sat Sep 25, 2004 at 10:49:43 PM EST

That is somewhat crazy, but its so hard to tell what is real and what is fake shit these days.  Did the Republicans really send this out in the mail?

Badassed Hotrod


Yes we did. (none / 0) (#249)
by John Asscroft on Wed Sep 29, 2004 at 11:13:13 PM EST

I have the actual flier up on my blog. The RNC has been contacted by the media and verify that the mailings were genuine and sent by the national party. The mailing, according to party insiders, was ginned up out of concern that not enough Christian conservatives will go to the polls.

Remember: A vote for the Democrats is a vote for Osama? Uhm, wait, who's Osama... oh... SADDAM! That's right, a vote for the Democrats is a vote for the man who attacked us on 9/11, Saddam Hussein!

Yours in keeping his villains straight,
The Attorney General of the Untied States of America
We must destroy freedom to save it from the terrorists who want to destroy freedom. Else the terrorists have won.
[ Parent ]

Problem: (none / 1) (#250)
by Elendale on Thu Sep 30, 2004 at 12:06:22 PM EST

"Personally I prefer 'civil unions'..."

This, of course, runs into the problem that (as has been shown time and time again) "separate is never equal". Whether it "calms the nerves" or not is irrelevant. The anti-gay crowd is basically equivalent to an army of five year olds throwing a coordinated temper tantrum to get their way. If you give it to them (even in a "separate but equal" sense) you're encouraging them to do it more. (This is just basic psychology.) Please note that many of these people are total whackjob lunatics with sniper-level hunting rifles. I know a number of them personally.

Of course, my favorite compromise (if there is to be one) is calling all marriage "civil unions". You want "marriage" to be only determined by Christianity (or at least, a twisted version of it)? Fine, fuckers. You can't get married then either. Well, you can call it whatever you want- but the government will call it a "civil union".


---

When free speech is outlawed, only criminals will complain.


Banning the Bible to Get Out the Vote | 253 comments (193 topical, 60 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!