interesting what a few months in office does to you;

My personal belief...if you are responsible enough to have sex, then you are responsible enough to deal with the consequences of your actions...which includes either parenthood or adoption...if you are raped, then that is a different story (which i am not against women being given a different opportunity) but i would see that as an excellent opportunity for adoption to the thousands of wonderful and waiting parents out there.

I am completely against an abortion if it's simply inconveniant for the mother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

but it will become human life

---

Potentially.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Potentially.

---

how is that potentially? unless the fetus can't survive? chances are against that scenario in the overall spectrum.

finding out your pregnant, tends to lead toward a human life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

how is that potentially? unless the fetus can't survive? chances are against that scenario in the overall spectrum.

finding out your pregnant, tends to lead toward a human life.

---

It depends on what stage of pregnancy you're talking about.

But, anyway, I don't want this thread to now veer off into an abortion debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

But, anyway, I don't want this thread to now veer off into an abortion debate.

---

I agree.....but I would like to know the other side of the coin....the why question....i am dating a liberal woman who is pro-choice and against the harming of any animals on any level....i just want to see her side better...didn't feel like opening a new thread...so i felt i would ask the question openly.

It's because of a difference in opinion of what is an actual "human being."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

I do not know...i am generalizing obviously with my question....you seem to be with your opinion through posts...it's a fair question to ask...so i am opening up the area for debate....doesn't mean I will ever agree to the other side...but I want to better understand it (i have a hard time talking politics with my gf, she gets sensitive and worked up too easily...so we stay away from the topics, but i also want to be compasionate to her feelings, thus why i am here).

---

I don't know either, Jeffy. Because I am, right now, admittedly AND unashamedly ANTI-RIGHT WING. But that seems to mean I'm liberal, yet I've never given money to any Democratic candidate or party (I have to several Republican candidates, though never the party itself), and I am..........are you ready for this.......... AN AVID HUNTER.

I've probably killed over 100 deer. No kidding. My son was basically raised on venison (and, LOL, he still asks for it, even though he's NEVER hunted. Dunno, seems funny to me). Anyway, I own FIVE GUNS. I've hunted since the 1960s (although lately, with the weight gain, I've slowed tremendously).

Now, to answer some of your questions.

YES, I kill animals. FOR FOOD. I've never agreed with killing animals for sport, and I suppose that may be hypocritcal since killing is killing no matter the reason, so guilty as charged. But I've killed deer, squirrels, turkeys, geese, ducks, quail, grouse, pheasants, and rabbits (and I might be forgetting some, not sure).

I believe abortion in the first trimester IS NOT MURDER. If I thought it was murder, I would be opposed to it, because I don't agree with murder. I think that during the first trimester it's basically a crap shoot anyway, as many, many, many pregnancies end "naturally" in the first trimester. And I will close the "abortion debate" segment by saying I think it is as equally ludicrous to suggest that a fetus one day before "birth" ISN'T A CHILD as it is to suggest a clump of cells one day after conception IS A CHILD.

I think both sides will never agree to a compromise on the issue though, because both sides use it so damned effectively politically.

Sorry, long winded again. I'm on a long winded role tonight. :o

By simply saying "pro-abortion" your telegraphing your views. Let me ask you a question instead of answering directly.

What makes you so righteous that you can tell others what they should think?
What gives you the right to determine what is right and wrong for others?

There's a reason that the correct term is "Pro-Choice". There's also a reason that the opposite ideology chooses to label themselves "Pro-Life". That self-righteous, holier then thou attitude is exactly what the Pro-Choice movement is combating. Abortion itself is basically tangential to the whole issue, for the Pro-Choice movement.

Regardless, there's definitely not an ingrained correlation between being Pro-Choice and anti-hunting or a gun control advocate. I'm a strong supporter of gun rights, and a hunting advocate, personally. Most libertarians are Pro-Choice, support Euthanasia, advocate complete freedom to own arms (even to an extreme. Most libertarians will put Republicans to shame on the gun control issue), and wouldn't dream of limiting hunting (aside from preventing wholesale slaughter, of course). There are plenty of liberals who are pro-choice and advocate for gun control, but their really a completely different constituency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

question for liberals...and this is totally off topic...but just a question.

Seems to be, more liberals are against hunting or killing of animals for many reasons...yet are pro abortion....how can someone think that way? This is an honest question, and am asking here, because I fear I will end up offending someone in person if I asked this question.

It seems that people that are soo adamently against pain or suffering to animals, or hunting etc are always the same people that support abortion...i find this a difficult and very gray area.

I personally am on the other end of both of those...i am pro hunting (to many limits) and very pro life (more so pro adoption then anything else)

again the point of this question is to learn more....but i also believe it is a fair question to ask

---

I cant tell you why it is one way or another, but I can say that as far as abortion goes I think its a good method for population control. And as far as I see it, it may be the cruelest thing I have said in these forums, who wants to be born in this bs world anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

question for liberals...and this is totally off topic...but just a question.

Seems to be, more liberals are against hunting or killing of animals for many reasons...yet are pro abortion....how can someone think that way? This is an honest question, and am asking here, because I fear I will end up offending someone in person if I asked this question.

It seems that people that are soo adamently against pain or suffering to animals, or hunting etc are always the same people that support abortion...i find this a difficult and very gray area.

I personally am on the other end of both of those...i am pro hunting (to many limits) and very pro life (more so pro adoption then anything else)

again the point of this question is to learn more....but i also believe it is a fair question to ask

---

Okay, this question just in general bothers me. This right here is what is absolutely wrong with American politics, and is happening more and more with Canadian politics as well.

Why does it have to be a Liberal position to be pro-choice? Why does it have to be a Conservative position to be pro-gun ownership? Why aren't people seemingly not allowed to do the SENSIBLE thing and actually mix and match BASED ON THEIR VIEWS?!

But no, if you're pro gun you HAVE to be pro life. If you're against hunting you HAVE to be against the death penalty.

It's simplistic crap for people who apparently don't want to do any of that yucky 'thinking for themselves' stuff...let the party do it for you! Ugh!

And just to be clear, I'm not going after Jeffy for bringing this up...I find the basic fact that it seems like you have to choose one side which will apparently control your opinion on every damn issue to be a case of more generalized stupidity that has infected government as a whole.

Well said Arctic, its done all the time and you did a good job pointing that out. I consider myself just right of the spectrum and I support Abortion but I am pro guns.

well in response to artic and ohm's i wasn't TRYING to say it is one side or another. Just generalizing the concept. I agree it is an issue. I have been working harder to learn the other side of the coin (liberal or not) on issues that I haven't always seen eye to eye with....such as abortion...i want to be able to be sympathetic to her point of views and understand them better in an attempt to not undervalue her opinions. I am very pro-life. i don't think it's a holier then though attitude. I believe it's a very cruel and unfair thing to do to an innocent child who hasn't even had a chance at life yet. Who are we to determine if a child should be allowed life or not. it seems to be, we would be playing God in the instance. If we believe in taking the responsiblity of having intimate sex with a partner, then we can accept the responsiblity of being a parent. Don't do something if you can't handle what could happen. same as drinking and driving or any other crime....if the worst case scenario happens, be prepared to take it on. don't look for a quick fix....if you do then you shouldn't have messed with the initial pleasure. That is how I look at it. My oldest nephew is adopted, took my brother and his wife 6 years of being foster parents to even be given the opportunity to adopt. They are a wealthy middle to upper level class family and make wonderful caring parents. I say, at least Jacob's mom chose life...even if she was addicted to crack when he was born, the kid has turned out just fine...a happy, healthy 9 year old boy who loves theater etc etc etc....a great kid, and it scares me how easily he couldv'e not existed. Think of all the people's lives Jacob will effect the rest of his...who are we to determine his right to live? I don't see it as a holier then thou attitude, I see it as a humbling attitude, where we do not get to make the choices of God...these are my opinions....but I want to understand the other side very clearly...on all issues that she and i don't agree on....she thinks there should be free health care in America, believes in redistribution of wealth, animals are probably too important to her, and obviously, is pro-choice....i am wanting to understand all of her issues better. I apoligize if it seemed i was labeling people, that was not the intent, I simply want to understand better, and this forum seems to have a lot of open-minded individuals where i can understand better without bringing up the conversations IRL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abben

I have to wonder what post you were responding to, because it certainly doesn't appear to be the one I've written. Utterly every word I have written applies with equal force to both opinion and news reporting. Where the (vanishingly small) distinction between the two exists is immaterial for my purposes because in both cases the news content has value to the extent that it advances our understanding of current affairs.

If anything, my post applies especially and overwhelmingly to editorials and opinion. Edward R. Murrow's critiques of Senator McCarthy were "merely" opinion, as were Martin Luther King's speeches and writings, as were the original publishings of the Federalist Papers, as are the present day debates about torture and wiretapping. Asserting our values and character as a country depends on our not being dismissive of these disputes. It furthermore depends on our recognition that not all opinions are created equal- some are actually right, some are values that we actually set out to enshrine. We don't silence those we disagree with, but we absolutely stand up and say unequivocally when they are wrong.

The most disgusting thing conservatives have done (and liberals have gone along with), is to foist this imaginary left-right spectrum onto every controversy, so that no one is ever correct or incorrect, they are just liberal or conservative. I've never seen any other idea that so powerfully promotes indifference and laziness. Thanks to this, Bill O'Reilly advocating terrorists blowing up the Coit Tower is just an opinion. Torture is wrong? That's just an opinion. And hey! People on the left say these things too! No one is right or wrong!

In the past eight years, this has bred complacency in the face of reprehensible ideas that badly needed to be challenged, as well as indifference to important ideas that desperately needed to be advanced; feel free to choose which of the two has caused more damage. That's why I think its terrible to take the entire process and pretend like mutually exclusive opinions are equally valid, or to stamp the whole process down to the flatness of a single adjective like "drivel" and call it a day. It's comforting, complacent, and frankly, a cop-out.

---

You proved what I was saying in my last post, here...

Anyway, it's obvious that OldFatGuy, Jeffy25, Dickay, and yourself have various issues with editorial content. There's nothing wrong with that, your all equally entitled to have and espose your own beliefs. Each of you has a dislike of one commentary or the other, and your all willing to speak out against them. Let me ask you this though: what are each of you attempting to accomplish? From my reading here it appears that each of you has become so polarized that your goals have become to silence the opposition. Is censorship really your goal? Is it a goal that you really think is a good goal to have?

I know where I stand on this: "I may dislike what you say, But I shall defend to the death your right to say it"
The television networks have 8760+ hours of programming per year to fill. There are times when I want the News only, and there are times when I want editorial opinion. With CNN, FOX, MSNBC, HLN, Google News, NBC, CBS, ABC, and my local news broadcasts I can pick and choose exactly what coverage I want. I don't see an issue in itself, there. If you don't like the editorial content on a program, change the channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

You proved what I was saying in my last post, here...

Anyway, it's obvious that OldFatGuy, Jeffy25, Dickay, and yourself have various issues with editorial content. There's nothing wrong with that, your all equally entitled to have and espose your own beliefs. Each of you has a dislike of one commentary or the other, and your all willing to speak out against them. Let me ask you this though: what are each of you attempting to accomplish? From my reading here it appears that each of you has become so polarized that your goals have become to silence the opposition. Is censorship really your goal? Is it a goal that you really think is a good goal to have?

---

maybe i am blind, but I don't belive i am trying to disprove anyone's beliefs or attack any of them. I am trying to understand the other side....i don't really know where this post came from, it wasn't an attack on an opinion...it was a question looking for the other side...far from attacking someone else's opinions.

EDIT-just realized you weren't writing that at me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

well in response to artic and ohm's i wasn't TRYING to say it is one side or another. Just generalizing the concept. I agree it is an issue. I have been working harder to learn the other side of the coin (liberal or not) on issues that I haven't always seen eye to eye with....such as abortion...i want to be able to be sympathetic to her point of views and understand them better in an attempt to not undervalue her opinions. I am very pro-life. i don't think it's a holier then though attitude. I believe it's a very cruel and unfair thing to do to an innocent child who hasn't even had a chance at life yet. Who are we to determine if a child should be allowed life or not. it seems to be, we would be playing God in the instance. If we believe in taking the responsiblity of having intimate sex with a partner, then we can accept the responsiblity of being a parent. Don't do something if you can't handle what could happen. same as drinking and driving or any other crime....if the worst case scenario happens, be prepared to take it on. don't look for a quick fix....if you do then you shouldn't have messed with the initial pleasure. That is how I look at it. My oldest nephew is adopted, took my brother and his wife 6 years of being foster parents to even be given the opportunity to adopt. They are a wealthy middle to upper level class family and make wonderful caring parents. I say, at least Jacob's mom chose life...even if she was addicted to crack when he was born, the kid has turned out just fine...a happy, healthy 9 year old boy who loves theater etc etc etc....a great kid, and it scares me how easily he couldv'e not existed. Think of all the people's lives Jacob will effect the rest of his...who are we to determine his right to live? I don't see it as a holier then thou attitude, I see it as a humbling attitude, where we do not get to make the choices of God...these are my opinions....but I want to understand the other side very clearly...on all issues that she and i don't agree on....she thinks there should be free health care in America, believes in redistribution of wealth, animals are probably too important to her, and obviously, is pro-choice....i am wanting to understand all of her issues better. I apoligize if it seemed i was labeling people, that was not the intent, I simply want to understand better, and this forum seems to have a lot of open-minded individuals where i can understand better without bringing up the conversations IRL

---

My only suggestion is, if you're truly attempting to understand then put aside your own views. For example, to the Pro-Choice ideology everything about "how terrible it is", "Innocent children", "playing god" are not arguments. There attempts to stifle any possibility of argument. It doesn't seem that you want to understand ata all, you simply want to bludgeon those who don't agree with your viewpoint with your own morality. This is why the abortion issue is so divisive, because those on both the "Christian Right" and the "Left" like to use it as a wedge issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

Who are we to determine if a child should be allowed life or not. it seems to be, we would be playing God in the instance.

---

Quote:

---

who are we to determine his right to live? I don't see it as a holier then thou attitude, I see it as a humbling attitude, where we do not get to make the choices of God...these are my opinions....

---

Jeffy, where do you stand on the death penalty? Is that "playing God"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

Jeffy, where do you stand on the death penalty? Is that "playing God"?

---

i am very against it, it isn't our place to do it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

i am very against it, it isn't our place to do it

---

bleeding heart liberal.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

My only suggestion is, if you're truly attempting to understand then put aside your own views. For example, to the Pro-Choice ideology everything about "how terrible it is", "Innocent children", "playing god" are not arguments. There attempts to stifle any possibility of argument. It doesn't seem that you want to understand ata all, you simply want to bludgeon those who don't agree with your viewpoint with your own morality. This is why the abortion issue is so divisive, because those on both the "Christian Right" and the "Left" like to use it as a wedge issue.

---

i have no real value in battling someone on a forum and trying to "convert" them to my way of thinking. I am wanting to hear the other side, the argument against my beliefs that can challenge them...how can i be open to an argument if i don't understand the other side?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OldFatGuy

bleeding heart liberal.:rolleyes:

---

haha, like i have said before...i am not this hard core, far right conservative...i tend to lean republican, but i am not hard core, but there are beliefs that i have that are considered very conservative to some...i have some liberal viewpoints.

How can you attempt to understand the other side while your bludgeoning them with your own views, though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

How can you attempt to understand the other side while your bludgeoning them with your own views, though?

---

i'm not, i was sharing my own views...that isn't bludgeoning them.

Then you were sharing your own views, not attpempting to understand the other side. If you really were then you wouldn't have brought up your own views. This line of debate is simply a form of making a straw man argument.

Maybe that wasn't your intention, but it's the end result regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Then you were sharing your own views, not attpempting to understand the other side. If you really were then you wouldn't have brought up your own views. This line of debate is simply a form of making a straw man argument.

Maybe that wasn't your intention, but it's the end result regardless.

---

if someone is going to help me understand the other side, should they not know my own beliefs?

Quote:

---

I think some opinions are actually right.

---

Well then, we're not even coming remotely close to having the same debate. That's a whole separate argument. Hopefully it should be obvious that I disagree with your viewpoint. The level of disagreement is so great that I'm not sure we could even have a rational discussion about the issue...

Regardless, I don't feel that this is the place to continue this discussion. You're starting a Red Herring argument here, and I wo't participate in it any further.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

if someone is going to help me understand the other side, should they not know my own beliefs?

---

This is just a backhanded methodology to present your own arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeffy25

well in response to artic and ohm's i wasn't TRYING to say it is one side or another. Just generalizing the concept. I agree it is an issue. I have been working harder to learn the other side of the coin (liberal or not) on issues that I haven't always seen eye to eye with....such as abortion...i want to be able to be sympathetic to her point of views and understand them better in an attempt to not undervalue her opinions. I am very pro-life. i don't think it's a holier then though attitude. I believe it's a very cruel and unfair thing to do to an innocent child who hasn't even had a chance at life yet. Who are we to determine if a child should be allowed life or not. it seems to be, we would be playing God in the instance. If we believe in taking the responsiblity of having intimate sex with a partner, then we can accept the responsiblity of being a parent. Don't do something if you can't handle what could happen. same as drinking and driving or any other crime....if the worst case scenario happens, be prepared to take it on. don't look for a quick fix....if you do then you shouldn't have messed with the initial pleasure. That is how I look at it. My oldest nephew is adopted, took my brother and his wife 6 years of being foster parents to even be given the opportunity to adopt. They are a wealthy middle to upper level class family and make wonderful caring parents. I say, at least Jacob's mom chose life...even if she was addicted to crack when he was born, the kid has turned out just fine...a happy, healthy 9 year old boy who loves theater etc etc etc....a great kid, and it scares me how easily he couldv'e not existed. Think of all the people's lives Jacob will effect the rest of his...who are we to determine his right to live? I don't see it as a holier then thou attitude, I see it as a humbling attitude, where we do not get to make the choices of God...these are my opinions....but I want to understand the other side very clearly...on all issues that she and i don't agree on....she thinks there should be free health care in America, believes in redistribution of wealth, animals are probably too important to her, and obviously, is pro-choice....i am wanting to understand all of her issues better. I apoligize if it seemed i was labeling people, that was not the intent, I simply want to understand better, and this forum seems to have a lot of open-minded individuals where i can understand better without bringing up the conversations IRL

---

I didn't think you were labeling people at all...my issue is more just with this general way of 'packaging' a set of beliefs and calling them one thing or the other and you can't be for or against one item on that menu without taking the whole thing. Not a problem I have so much with you as with political discourse in general these days.

Really, the whole abortion debate comes down to one very simple concept...when does human life begin? Most who I've encountered who are pro life believe it begins at basically the moment of conception. Most who are pro choice believe that it doesn't really occur until the first trimester is over. Whatever side of the fence you come down on to the question of when human life begins pretty much is going to determine what side of the fence you come down on in the pro life/pro choice debate.

One thing I will add...being pro choice doesn't make my pro abortion...it's not the same thing.

I'm honestly not understanding the disconnect, ohms, with what you've been saying and what abben has been saying.

Quote:

---

You don't think some opinions are right and others are wrong?

---

No.

Quote:

---

You have to understand how disappointed I am with this response. It's the same thing someone would say who is just trying to evade answering because they don't want to argue in good faith, or don't want to admit being wrong.

---

I'm not attempting to evade anything. I'm perfectly willing to talk about it, just not in this thread... although, I guess that the original argument is dead anyway.
*shrug*

Opinion is exactly that. How can an opinion be right or wrong?
You can continue to slander others if you'd like, but that does nothing to convince me that you have a point that is worth my consideration.

Quote:

---

Most importantly, through opinion we make value judgments, and here just as anywhere else, there are indeed rights and wrongs. It's right for women to vote. It's wrong to torture. It's generally wrong to start wars with certain exceptions. Some are tougher: can cap & trade be implemented without disproportionately imposing its costs on the poor? It's a difficult question, but its not a question with "no answer". That's what you say if you are lazy and just don't want to debate it.

---

It's neither right nor wrong that Women are able to vote. Our current value system dictates that they should have the right to vote, is all. that's an issue that has changed significantly within just the last 100 years.

It's not wrong to torture, it's simply the opinion of most that doing so is generally not useful and that doing so is inhumane (and, by extension, that humanity is an important ideological viewpoint).

And, for the "cap and trade" question, there are facts that need to go into the debate. The interpretation of those facts are opinion, and those opinions are no more right or wrong then any other (barring any misrepresentation or methodology issues). There are plenty of answers, but those answers all depend on definitions. What exactly is "disproportionately", for example.

Perhaps I am lazy, but at least I'm not pedantic.

ohms, just curious...and I know that this is taking things to the extreme...but, would you say that something like the Holocaust isn't necessarily right or wrong?

I agree with abben in that I do think there are things where there IS a right answer, and if you hold a different opinion of it, you ARE wrong (not everything, but some things).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I agree with abben in that I do think there are things where there IS a right answer, and if you hold a different opinion of it, you ARE wrong (not everything, but some things).

---

Within a common moral framework, yes. That doesn't mean that the "correctness" of the view is quantifiable at all, though. If the moral prism that the opinion is given under is later rejected, then the opinion itself become "incorrect".

There's a reason that opinions are opinions, is all. Abben's moralistic preaching can't change that.

Ok

In order for a society to function, one main "moral" has to be instilled (which, as it happens, is the basic tenant of most of our laws), that being one individual shouldn't negatively affect another individual.

In a perfect world, no one would have any influence on anyone else, but since we don't live in a perfect world, we have to attempt to limit the amount of interference, which we (most first world countries) do by having laws that state we can't murder other people or steal from other people, ect. We identify these things as a negative to society as a whole, then punish those who do them.

Now, that doesn't mean that in human history we always follwed that tenant. In fact, we have enslaved whole races and defended it; we have performed genocide after genocide and defended it. That doesn't make it right and doesn't make it jive with the one basic tenant of society (and being that it doesn't, we as a race corrected it, regardless of the amount of time it took to correct).

I would guess that if we (as a whole) would have allowed the things I mentioned to happen without consequence, our society would eventually collapse and our race would go extinct.

Ohms_law, wouldn't you agree that society couldn't function without the majority view above? If so, couldn't it be said the one basic "correct" view would be that negatively affecting another individual (in certain degrees) is "wrong"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

This is just a backhanded methodology to present your own arguments.

---

well then you sir are just misguided and making an assumption

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

One thing I will add...being pro choice doesn't make my pro abortion...it's not the same thing.

---

Yes, i need to, again apoligize for that statement, it was with the wrong intent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by free2131

In order for a society to function, one main "moral" has to be instilled (which, as it happens, is the basic tenant of most of our laws), that being one individual shouldn't negatively affect another individual.

In a perfect world, no one would have any influence on anyone else, but since we don't live in a perfect world, we have to attempt to limit the amount of interference, which we (most first world countries) do by having laws that state we can't murder other people or steal from other people, ect. We identify these things as a negative to society as a whole, then punish those who do them.

Now, that doesn't mean that in human history we always follwed that tenant. In fact, we have enslaved whole races and defended it; we have performed genocide after genocide and defended it. That doesn't make it right and doesn't make it jive with the one basic tenant of society (and being that it doesn't, we as a race corrected it, regardless of the amount of time it took to correct).

I would guess that if we (as a whole) would have allowed the things I mentioned to happen without consequence, our society would eventually collapse and our race would go extinct.

Ohms_law, wouldn't you agree that society couldn't function without the majority view above? If so, couldn't it be said the one basic "correct" view would be that negatively affecting another individual (in certain degrees) is "wrong"?

---

This is fine, and sad at the same time. The idea that a perfect society is one in which people have no influence on each other - that is not my idea of perfection. Though I don't think that is really what you meant.

Regardless, it is fiction to believe that there is a set of rules or laws that we could enact that would resolve these problems. There are too many issues where the direction of harm is unclear. Do my neighbours have the right to be loud, or do I have the right to insist on quiet? Does the smoker have a right to smoke, or does the non-smoker have the right to clean air?

And finally, and I'm guessing that Ohms would agree with me, the basic premise of your view is one that I agree with. But there is nothing that defines this is the only way for society to function, and there is nothing that defines this as the morally correct viewpoint.

back to labeling...but show me a democrat with a great work ethic, and I can match you a Republican willing to help. the same goes with the opposite....we aren't all universally similiar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kenny1234

This is fine, and sad at the same time. The idea that a perfect society is one in which people have no influence on each other - that is not my idea of perfection. Though I don't think that is really what you meant.

---

Yeah, what I meant was a negative influence.

Quote:

---

Regardless, it is fiction to believe that there is a set of rules or laws that we could enact that would resolve these problems.

---

Would we ever COMPLETELY resolve these problems? Not until we replace the human brain with a positronic one. ;)

Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and it doesn't give us an excuse not to try. Saying, "Well, we can never stop all of it, so why should try and stop ANY of it," simply isn't acceptable.

Quote:

---

There are too many issues where the direction of harm is unclear. Do my neighbours have the right to be loud, or do I have the right to insist on quiet?

---

Let me point out my last statement:

If so, couldn't it be said the one basic "correct" view would be that negatively affecting another individual (in certain degrees) is "wrong"?

What I bolded is the important part. We as a society have to decide a "line in the sand", so to speak, of where one person's rights start to interfere with another's, and if that interference is severe enough to warrant attention.

In this case it would depend on many factors, such as time of day, exactly what kind of noise (profanity, loud music, ect.).

Quote:

---

Does the smoker have a right to smoke, or does the non-smoker have the right to clean air?

---

As we have proven evidence that second hand smoke causes harm to the human body, then out in public I would say that the right to clean air supercedes the right to smoke. Of course, when we move from the public into a business or a personal residence, this would change the situation.

Quote:

---

And finally, and I'm guessing that Ohms would agree with me, the basic premise of your view is one that I agree with. But there is nothing that defines this is the only way for society to function, and there is nothing that defines this as the morally correct viewpoint.

---

I respectfully disagree that society could function without some form of the tenant of individual rights. Without that basic "moral", what would stop me from taking from you what I want, or killing you because you angered me? Most all of the groups of people who haven't followed this tenant have either been forced to follow them through force (or at least attempted to), or have disappeared completely from society.

Society just wouldn't function in the long run, and whether or not an individual agrees with the premise, nothing changes the fact that it is the way it is.

Democrats in Senate Block Money to Close Guantánamo

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON — In an abrupt shift, Senate Democratic leaders said on Tuesday that they would not provide the $80 million that President Obama requested to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

---

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8146881/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by June 9, 2005

Top Democrat wants it closed

Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader of the House of Representatives, added her voice to the criticism by supporting those calling for the closure of the detention camp, including former President Jimmy Carter and Sen. Joseph Biden, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“I think that we need a fresh start, ... a clean slate for America in the Muslim world,” Pelosi told reporters.

Carter echoed that view earlier this week. “To demonstrate clearly our nation’s historic commitment to protect human rights, our government needs to close down Guantanamo and the two dozen secret detention facilities run by the United States as soon as practicable,” the Democrat said.

Biden, for his part, declared Guantanamo “the greatest propaganda tool that exists for the recruiting of terrorists around the world.”

---