Other What are your politics?

[ARSENIC]

@Wixard While they do say imitation is the truest flattery, I can't help but feel like I'm being somewhat targeted here (particularly with specifically stating you 'agree' on terms where your point matches mine). Like you wanted a debate. Well, fortunately, I love a good debate.


I won't really discuss abortion, and its byproducts, since I'm going to assume your reservations are religious, hence your lack of open, logical justification.


Gay Marriage is more than just about a wedding with two grooms. Marriage allows for systems like inheritance, joint bank accounts, joint taxes, and various other legal systems which gays are otherwise barred from. Many of these systems are not recognized in other forms of civil partnership.


Vaccinations always come with certifications, and under a government-sponsored system would be publicly recorded. You'd be able to pull up someone's vaccine record the same way you can pull up a criminal record.


Trans rights are not about the government paying for trans surgery, they're about making sure trans people can use the bathroom of their declared gender.


Corporate tax exists so that small businesses that source locally, which pay less of those taxes and tarrifs, can compete with large ones with international sources with cheaper prices and who don't have to pay for tertiary services since they own them already.


Minimum wage exists purely to prevent government exploitation. One person shouldn't need to work two full-time jobs in order to have the privilege of being broke, and needing welfare anyway.


Abolishing the common core entirely will get you even more idiots with unemployable majors. I agree that the system needs an overhaul, but removing the necessity of teaching basic math will get you grown adults without the credentials of a cashier, let alone anything to do with a computer, and utterly incapable of filing taxes.


ISIS uses a very vague definition of 'hold' in terms of the territory they conquer. They ravage, and then move on. This is why their territory is so easily recaptured, but they remain so effective at the spearhead of their assault.


Drones do not need to be fitted with total AI. It's easy to have a drone commander remotely controlling key decisions, much in the same way a commanding officer does today.


China is no longer the problem. China is actively investing billions of dollars in curbing and fixing its pollution problem, most recently in the development of the "Smog Eating Tower" (the name sounds much cooler in Chinese, I'm told).


GMOs are much less expensive and prohibited than you think. Patents are temporary, and only prescribe against the use of that specific genome set, and while I do admit that 20 years is too long, but pharma has gone on with the 20 year margin just fine. Not to mention, unlike pharma, GMOs can literally be bred in a dingy little high school lab by a one-man team. It won't be as dramatically effective as the million-dollar stuff, but if all you want is faster growth or slower rotting, it does the job beautifully.

 

[ARSENIC]

Doing some looking around, it looks like he hasn't really elaborated on how he's going to do that except he's going to try to get foreign bases to pay more. I'm skeptical, but I guess there's nothing to do but wait and see.

That doesn't seem at all in line with his character! I mean, don't you remember when he gave his air-tight plan on how he's going to convince Mexico to pay for the wall?


In all seriousness, though, going full drone would do exactly that. No need to pay for maintenance or training or worry about shooting preemptively to defend the lives of your fully expendable robot minions.

 

[charleen]

Why is climate change so looked upon??? At the rate that we are going, it has already come down to a mass extinction due to excessive human activities that is ruining this earth and we only have one of those right??

 

[Swindle]

Also, @ARSENIC, regarding your statement about the USA having enough nukes to destroy the world eight times over is actually false. The total number of warheads available today (and that's not even counting that most are not actually ready to use for first strike/retaliatory strikes, meaning that number could go down considerably) is "only" below 20,000 with an equivalent yield in Megatons of 5,000. Even if we upped that to 20,000 (to make the yield of each nuke 1MT), their combined destructive radius would only be enough to do real damage to about 2% of the Earth's surface. (Their total destruction radius is about 7 miles out in this case, while other things could be damaged as far as 70 miles away.) 


When you also consider that nuclear war would be composed of targeted strikes against primarily military installations, it becomes even less scary for most of the world. 


Plus, the world's biosphere is pretty resilient and nuclear winter may not even be a real threat either. 


Not really on topic, but I personally think MAD is just fearmongering. The devastation would be terrible, but it would be far from the end of all things. 

 

[ARSENIC]

@Swindle


The US still probably has enough missiles to fire at least one at every city around the world with a population greater than 100,000 people and still have some spares. The world may be vast, but human population is extremely unevenly spread, so while that may have been an  exaggeration born out of a laziness to actually do the research for a forum post, I hope you understand my point: We've got enough nukes in the world already for any and all practical purposes. We don't need more.

 

[Swindle]

@ARSENIC


Yes, I got the main point of what you were saying. I just think it's an entertaining notion to rebut and think about. 


Although firing your nuclear arsenal at population centers would be a huge waste if you're actually trying to win.

 

[Wixard]

@ARSENIC I put in agree because I was literally deleting your answers and replacing them with my own as I went along and when I didn't really change them I added that so that it wouldn't be entirely word for word.


Sure I'll debate you. Pick one topic tho. As for abortion, I'd appreciate it if you didn't jump straight to ad-hominem attacks, but I'll happily explain my reasoning to you if you want.

 

[Wixard]

@Swindle


The US still probably has enough missiles to fire at least one at every city around the world with a population greater than 100,000 people and still have some spares. The world may be vast, but human population is extremely unevenly spread, so while that may have been an  exaggeration born out of a laziness to actually do the research for a forum post, I hope you understand my point: We've got enough nukes in the world already for any and all practical purposes. We don't need more.

But for the sake of argument, we have to assume some of those bombs and missiles will be defeated by various defense systems, so you need to assume more than one bomb per target to really make sure.

 

[Grey]

Are you suggesting there might be a correlation between someone's political ideology and their roleplay content?

I have come to feel there is such a correlation in all artforms, but it's a bias I actively try to work against. I respect the writing skills of everyone in this thread who has disagreed with me, which has been an excellent challenge to this bias.

Fyi, looking over what you've posted, you and I are night and day on several issues.  Which is completely kosher with me, but food for thought.

I'm not surprised - I always imagined this to be the case based on cultural factors and the generation gap. 


I am curious as to where we differ; I like to leave a discussion with my mind changed rather than with the same views with which I entered, but I can understand if you'd prefer simply to disagree and carry on with our friendship. If it's not a presumption to describe it so. 

 

[ARSENIC]

 As for abortion, I'd appreciate it if you didn't jump straight to ad-hominem attacks, but I'll happily explain my reasoning to you if you want.

I didn't intend it as an attack, more a resignation to the fact that the "sanctity of life" argument is one I don't debate with because it's a matter of belief (God gave us life and therefore life is sacred) and, being an atheist, I simply do not believe it, but recognize that people who do would act accordingly, even when it contradicts with their own empirical logic by either effectively, or sometimes even literally, ending the life of the mother, since to the religious man the act of killing is worse than the act of allowing someone to die, whereas empirically they're identical.


If you do have an argument against abortion, though, that does not have the existence of or belief in divinity as its pre-requisite, I'd love to hear it!

 

[Bone2pick]

I'm not surprised - I always imagined this to be the case based on cultural factors and the generation gap. 


I am curious as to where we differ; I like to leave a discussion with my mind changed rather than with the same views with which I entered, but I can understand if you'd prefer simply to disagree and carry on with our friendship. If it's not a presumption to describe it so. 

If it's a presumption, it's not much of one.  I'll happily outline all of my ideological differences with you with the requirement it take place in a PM.  I'm selective with who I share my political and social leanings with.  So whenever you feel the need to scratch the itch just shoot me a PM. 

 

[Grey]

On the topic of abortion, if I may chime in to clarify my position.


I wholly understand that many people have moral reservations about abortion, and I genuinely think that none of us should be completely comfortable with our position on the topic. Particularly those of us who can never be pregnant. It seems to me both sides of the debate would prefer less abortions but have radically different underlying motivations and methods. I am not comfortable with abortion-on-demand, but at this time I consider it the least bad option to ensure full personal autonomy for individuals capable of becoming pregnant, and to minimize human suffering.


I personally feel that, ideally, contraceptive education and care should be provided to minimize unwanted pregnancies such that the only abortions necessary are for medical reasons (I include suicidal ideation due to a rape-induced pregnancy under medical concerns). 


Put mildly, it is shortsighted and hypocritcal to oppose both convenient provision of abortions and comprehensive sexual education/access to effective contraceptive care. The best way to reduce terminations is to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and the available data clearly demonstrate that abstinence-only methods are inadequate.

If it's a presumption, it's not much of one.  I'll happily outline all of my ideological differences with you with the requirement it take place in a PM.  I'm selective with who I share my political and social leanings with.  So whenever you feel the need to scratch the itch just shoot me a PM. 

Aye, I had an inkling you'd prefer a PM. Some other evening we'll have to discuss it; I like to imagine it'll be enriching for us both.

 

[Shireling]

Yeah, I believe you. : P  The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten militaries combined.


But...I'm not holding my breath for the GOP to reduce military spending anytime soon. Trump has even talked about increasing military spending.


(Edit: Wait, just double-checked that. He wants to increase the military...but spend less on it somehow????)

Eisenhower did it. 

 

[Wixard]

I didn't intend it as an attack, more a resignation to the fact that the "sanctity of life" argument is one I don't debate with because it's a matter of belief (God gave us life and therefore life is sacred) and, being an atheist, I simply do not believe it, but recognize that people who do would act accordingly, even when it contradicts with their own empirical logic by either effectively, or sometimes even literally, ending the life of the mother, since to the religious man the act of killing is worse than the act of allowing someone to die, whereas empirically they're identical.


If you do have an argument against abortion, though, that does not have the existence of or belief in divinity as its pre-requisite, I'd love to hear it!

First, I'd like to point out the false assumption that NOT aborting the baby is effectively allowing the mother to die. There are rare cases where an unborn child poses a grave threat to the life of it's mother due to medical conditions in one or both of them. This is a tragedy either way, but let's not pretend most abortions are like that. Most abortions aren't because of rape either. The vast majority of abortions are about convenience. 


Even if you don't believe life is sacred, I'm going to assume you believe it has value. Otherwise, what happens to the mother doesn't matter either. Since we know scientifically that fetuses are, in fact a) human b) individuals and c) alive, we must conclude that if human life had value, they must have value. No amount of inconvenience on the mother's part justifies the destruction of this life. People have proven that raising a child, though difficult, is not an insurmountable obstacle, even under unfavorable conditions. And of course, there's always adoption.

 

Eisenhower did it. 

Yeah, regardless of whether Trump can do it, or whether he succeeds or not, its still a good idea.

 

[AkuTheWolfOkami]

Abortion: I choose a woman's autonomy...so..
Gay Marriage/Gay Rights:They're people...they deserve the same rights as other people...
Planned Parenthood:keep it going
Religious Freedom Act:...you mean practice whatever you want to in a religion? why would I care? 
Required Vaccination:  Yeah. for every 1 child who has a bad reaction, a million (making up numbers here) are saved.
Trans Rights: ...again they're people
Death Penalty: on one hand, if you take a life you should lose your's..on the other hand? who are we to decide who lives and dies?
Obamacare:  You mean the affordable healthcare act? Needs some adjustments, but it's overall good.
Legalize Marijuana: HELLZ YEAH. Shouldn't be young men in jail for 25 years because of marijuana and rapists getting out in 6 months...
Minimum Wage: ..you mean the only reason they aren't paying McDonald workers 2 pieces of a gum? yeah need that.
Higher Taxes on the Wealthy: ..logical sense here...
Lower Taxes on the Poor:..logical sense again.. 
Welfare: It's abused, but a lot of people use it properly...so eh..
Trans-Pacific Partnership:  abstain
Puerto Rico Bailout: abstain
Building Wall:  dumb
Deportation: Case to case basis.
Full Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants: case to case nasos 
Diminish Student Loans: paying for an education sounds funny to me...
Common Core: you mean understanding basic shit? ....yeah that's a thing..
Declare War on ISIS: How do you declare war on ISIS? I'm confident y'all don't understand ISIS or how you go about declaring war for that matter
Increase Military Spending: It's fine where it is, increase education spending
Drone Usage:....yes? lol. what's this really about? Are you implying drones are going to replace humans?
Guantanamo Bay Facility:  Uh. Again, what is this about?
Troops in Syria: I was in Syria. 
Government Surveillance: Social Contract
Gun Control: you don't even need a license to buy a gun in most states.....that's kinda weird...
Iphone Encryption: huh...confident y'all don't quite understand this.
Reduce Campaign Finance:...what...
Reduce Climate Change: You don't reduce CLIMATE CHANGE...the climate changes naturally over time...but yes, limit the adverse effects human have on the climate
Reduce GMOs:  OPTIONS..
Pardon Edward Snowden: no, he's a treasonous coward who actually has zero idea of what's really going on.....


Gold Standard: come again......are you just saying things to say it?

 

[ARSENIC]

First, I'd like to point out the false assumption that NOT aborting the baby is effectively allowing the mother to die. There are rare cases where an unborn child poses a grave threat to the life of it's mother due to medical conditions in one or both of them. This is a tragedy either way, but let's not pretend most abortions are like that. Most abortions aren't because of rape either. The vast majority of abortions are about convenience. 


Even if you don't believe life is sacred, I'm going to assume you believe it has value. Otherwise, what happens to the mother doesn't matter either. Since we know scientifically that fetuses are, in fact a) human b) individuals and c) alive, we must conclude that if human life had value, they must have value. No amount of inconvenience on the mother's part justifies the destruction of this life. People have proven that raising a child, though difficult, is not an insurmountable obstacle, even under unfavorable conditions. And of course, there's always adoption.

 

Actually, I'd argue that because the fetus does not have self-awareness until about halfway into the second trimester, once it develops organs that allow it to sense, and interact with, the world, that before that point it is incapable of feeling, acting, or even thinking, and therefore not yet truly human, or even a full animal, since animals can feel things like pain and joy. Since abortion is almost impossible after this point anyway and even then, extremely risky to the point where any reasonable doctor would highly recommend against it, even if we just consider the health of the mother. Aborting an embryo before it develops self-consciousness is no different from cutting hair or clipping fingernails - expelling a part of you incapable of knowing it is being discarded, absent of the notion that said embryo already has a "soul".

 

[Wixard]

Actually, I'd argue that because the fetus does not have self-awareness until about halfway into the second trimester, once it develops organs that allow it to sense, and interact with, the world, that before that point it is incapable of feeling, acting, or even thinking, and therefore not yet truly human, or even a full animal, since animals can feel things like pain and joy. Since abortion is almost impossible after this point anyway and even then, extremely risky to the point where any reasonable doctor would highly recommend against it, even if we just consider the health of the mother. Aborting an embryo before it develops self-consciousness is no different from cutting hair or clipping fingernails - expelling a part of you incapable of knowing it is being discarded, absent of the notion that said embryo already has a "soul".

Hair clippings and fingernails to not have unique DNA or the capacity to develop individual wills and bodies.

 

[Swindle]

Also, just because a mother could still rear a child under unfavorable conditions that doesn't mean they should do that. That's just asking for maladjusted children and broken homes. Also, people mention adoption a lot, but when you consider the massive amounts of unadopted kids it's hard to say that it's a viable alternative. 

 

[Shireling]

Also, just because a mother could still rear a child under unfavorable conditions that doesn't mean they should do that. That's just asking for maladjusted children and broken homes. Also, people mention adoption a lot, but when you consider the massive amounts of unadopted kids it's hard to say that it's a viable alternative. 

Isn't living in an orphanage preferable to being euthanized? 

 

[AkuTheWolfOkami]

Isn't living in an orphanage preferable to being euthanized? 

Are you guys even trying anymore? You could have come up with a better response.....

 

[Swindle]

Well, like Arsenic said, it's not exactly sentient until later in the second trimester and late term abortions like that are uncommon except in life threatening situations.


Additionally, to my knowledge the foster system is not only overburdened but also horribly corrupt and abusive in many cases. 

 

[Grey]

And if one makes the argument that the potentiality of full personhood, even born into suffering, is preferable to continued non-existence and would supersede the desires or needs of a person, this would imply that any sexual activity for reasons other than procreation is equally unacceptable. This strikes me as-at best-impractical on a number of levels.

 

[Shireling]

Well, like Arsenic said, it's not exactly sentient until later in the second trimester and late term abortions like that are uncommon except in life threatening situations.


Additionally, to my knowledge the foster system is not only overburdened but also horribly corrupt and abusive in many cases. 

Are you guys even trying anymore? You could have come up with a better response.....

You're not addressing the question. You're saying that its better that the fetus be aborted than the child that invariably results from that fetus to be alive. 

And if one makes the argument that the potentiality of full personhood, even born into suffering, is preferable to continued non-existence and would supersede the desires or needs of a person, this would imply that any sexual activity for reasons other than procreation is equally unacceptable. This strikes me as-at best-impractical on a number of levels.

Sexual activity doesn't produce an entity with the potentiality to become a person until a sperm fertilizes an egg. Sperm or eggs on their own will never develop into persons, therefore this is a non-issue. I'm not the one implying this, you are. 

 

[Grey]

Sexual activity doesn't produce an entity with the potentiality to become a person until a sperm fertilizes an egg. Sperm or eggs on their own will never develop into persons, therefore this is a non-issue. I'm not the one implying this, you are. 

So would you say that a fertilized egg is to be accorded all the rights and considerations of a human child, from the moment of fertilization onward?


And, additionally, are you therefore in favour of comprehensive sexual education and access to contraceptive options in order to prevent this fertilization?

 

[Shireling]

So would you say that a fertilized egg is to be accorded all the rights and considerations of a human child, from the moment of fertilization onward?


And, additionally, are you therefore in favour of comprehensive sexual education and access to contraceptive options in order to prevent this fertilization?

Actually yes, I believe in both of those things.