Our Earth
17-05-2004, 02:39
The thread was locked before I could post, but I've put some time into this and answered seriously and without flaming, so I'm going to post it here:
First I'd like to note that you seem to be a bit confused as to what exactly a "Liberal" is. A liberal is not necessarily a Democrat, and a Democrat is not necessarily a liberal. This is an important distinction to keep in mind when having discussions on this sort of thing.
(1) If you are going to cry, bitch, piss, and moan...If you are going to wail and gnash teeth at the loss of a few innocents through a conflict of arms....that is being fought by both sides....then why do you same people condone the killing of an innocent life in the womb? (Murder of an innocent, is murder of an innocent!)
I, as a liberal, don't recall every doing any of those things about the death of innocents in Iraq. I reckognize that it is meaningfully impossible to avoid civilian casualties in a war. With that said it is important to understand that it is not "a few" innocents so much as thousands. More innocent civilians have died in Iraq than died on September 11th.
As for the abortion part of your question, the answer is simple; Abortion isn't desirable, but banning it, and all that would be required to enfore such a ban (massive intrusions into people's privacy) would be worse even than the tragic deaths of the unborn.
(2) If you are going to place the blame for the killing of a few children in a conflict of arms, on the soldier, or the president.....then who is to blame for the killing of innocent children, by other children....here in our own streets every day? (Who is responsible for death?)
I think that it is fair to say that the soldiers and the President are well versed in our societies concepts of right and wrong. The deaths of children at the hands of other children in this country is the result of a lack of understanding on the part of the perpetrator. Certainly you can agree that a 5 year old has less comprehension of the consequences of his actions than a soldier or the President.
(3) How can you seek to remove the death penalty? Many who are given the death penalty have purposely, maliciously, and violently taken innocent lives. (They set out to take those lives from the start.)
This one is easier than any of the others so far. The death penalty represents the part of our "justice" system devoted to revenge rather than preventing further crime or rehabilitating criminals so that they can renter society. On top of the fact that the death penalty allows for no rehabilitation or repentence, it has been known to unjustly end the lives of innocents. You cannot talk so righteously on the value of the lives of innocents and then condone the killing of convicted criminals when our system has convicted innocents on many occasions.
(4) How can you support the acts of the Palestinians (Blowing up busloads of innocents and training children to strap bombs on their backs), but refuse to support the US leadership and military in putting an end to such things?
Who supports those actions? Really now? This question is just absurd.
(5) How can you try to remove the gun from my home, that is used only to protect my home from invasion, but not support the removal from power, of a dictator that harbors mass graves, has people killed for free speech, or takes food from their mouths, to support his empire?
I fail to see how those are related, but I'll answer each individually.
When I seek to remove guns from homes I do it for two main reasons. The first is that guns improperly kept in homes are one of the leading causes of death in children. They getting into their parents guns and play around with them and accidentally shoot their friend or sibling because of the parents irresponsibility. The second reason is that gun violence in this country is endemic in some places and I am willing to give up the small degree of safety that owning a gun brings me to save the lives of thousands.
On the other hand, a gun is a valuable tool if handled properly. Guns are not necessarily a hazard. In the hands of a trained owner they are actually very safe. If proper safety procedures are followed there is no reason why a person should not be allowed to own a gun. I feel that a requirement of some sort of training life drivers' training for gun owners would be appropriate and would remove much of the danger of unskilled and irresponsible gun owners.
And to the second part: I think you misunderstand the aims of many liberals. Most everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein was a terrible leader and deserved to be removed from power. The disagreement comes from the method by which people believed he should have been removed. Many liberals felt that a peaceful solution was more desirable and that the administration did not exhaust all its diplomatic options before engaging in combat.
(6) (Two part question) How is it that you believe that the First Amendment only applies to those of you wanting to burn the flag, remove the cross, tear up the bible, hate the president, or spit at the soldier? Does the First Amendment not also apply to those who love their country, love god, support the military, or wish to preserve patritosm?
Here I'm afraid you're just wrong. No one has said that the First Ammendment applies only to acts which have been recently dubbed "unpatriotic" (strikingly similar to "unamerican" of the McCarthy Era or "crimethink" of 1984, but that's another conversation entirely). And certainly no one said that it does not protect the rights of "patriots" in their defense of what they feel are "american values." The free flow of ideas is the bedrock of American Democracy and without it our country would be nothing. Everyone must be allowed to express their beleifs without fear of reprisals and slander. Sadly a large portion of today's political pundits have forgotten that the First Ammendment is intended to apply to everyone and have spent most of their time for the last few years slandering and attempting to debase their "opposition."
First I'd like to note that you seem to be a bit confused as to what exactly a "Liberal" is. A liberal is not necessarily a Democrat, and a Democrat is not necessarily a liberal. This is an important distinction to keep in mind when having discussions on this sort of thing.
(1) If you are going to cry, bitch, piss, and moan...If you are going to wail and gnash teeth at the loss of a few innocents through a conflict of arms....that is being fought by both sides....then why do you same people condone the killing of an innocent life in the womb? (Murder of an innocent, is murder of an innocent!)
I, as a liberal, don't recall every doing any of those things about the death of innocents in Iraq. I reckognize that it is meaningfully impossible to avoid civilian casualties in a war. With that said it is important to understand that it is not "a few" innocents so much as thousands. More innocent civilians have died in Iraq than died on September 11th.
As for the abortion part of your question, the answer is simple; Abortion isn't desirable, but banning it, and all that would be required to enfore such a ban (massive intrusions into people's privacy) would be worse even than the tragic deaths of the unborn.
(2) If you are going to place the blame for the killing of a few children in a conflict of arms, on the soldier, or the president.....then who is to blame for the killing of innocent children, by other children....here in our own streets every day? (Who is responsible for death?)
I think that it is fair to say that the soldiers and the President are well versed in our societies concepts of right and wrong. The deaths of children at the hands of other children in this country is the result of a lack of understanding on the part of the perpetrator. Certainly you can agree that a 5 year old has less comprehension of the consequences of his actions than a soldier or the President.
(3) How can you seek to remove the death penalty? Many who are given the death penalty have purposely, maliciously, and violently taken innocent lives. (They set out to take those lives from the start.)
This one is easier than any of the others so far. The death penalty represents the part of our "justice" system devoted to revenge rather than preventing further crime or rehabilitating criminals so that they can renter society. On top of the fact that the death penalty allows for no rehabilitation or repentence, it has been known to unjustly end the lives of innocents. You cannot talk so righteously on the value of the lives of innocents and then condone the killing of convicted criminals when our system has convicted innocents on many occasions.
(4) How can you support the acts of the Palestinians (Blowing up busloads of innocents and training children to strap bombs on their backs), but refuse to support the US leadership and military in putting an end to such things?
Who supports those actions? Really now? This question is just absurd.
(5) How can you try to remove the gun from my home, that is used only to protect my home from invasion, but not support the removal from power, of a dictator that harbors mass graves, has people killed for free speech, or takes food from their mouths, to support his empire?
I fail to see how those are related, but I'll answer each individually.
When I seek to remove guns from homes I do it for two main reasons. The first is that guns improperly kept in homes are one of the leading causes of death in children. They getting into their parents guns and play around with them and accidentally shoot their friend or sibling because of the parents irresponsibility. The second reason is that gun violence in this country is endemic in some places and I am willing to give up the small degree of safety that owning a gun brings me to save the lives of thousands.
On the other hand, a gun is a valuable tool if handled properly. Guns are not necessarily a hazard. In the hands of a trained owner they are actually very safe. If proper safety procedures are followed there is no reason why a person should not be allowed to own a gun. I feel that a requirement of some sort of training life drivers' training for gun owners would be appropriate and would remove much of the danger of unskilled and irresponsible gun owners.
And to the second part: I think you misunderstand the aims of many liberals. Most everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein was a terrible leader and deserved to be removed from power. The disagreement comes from the method by which people believed he should have been removed. Many liberals felt that a peaceful solution was more desirable and that the administration did not exhaust all its diplomatic options before engaging in combat.
(6) (Two part question) How is it that you believe that the First Amendment only applies to those of you wanting to burn the flag, remove the cross, tear up the bible, hate the president, or spit at the soldier? Does the First Amendment not also apply to those who love their country, love god, support the military, or wish to preserve patritosm?
Here I'm afraid you're just wrong. No one has said that the First Ammendment applies only to acts which have been recently dubbed "unpatriotic" (strikingly similar to "unamerican" of the McCarthy Era or "crimethink" of 1984, but that's another conversation entirely). And certainly no one said that it does not protect the rights of "patriots" in their defense of what they feel are "american values." The free flow of ideas is the bedrock of American Democracy and without it our country would be nothing. Everyone must be allowed to express their beleifs without fear of reprisals and slander. Sadly a large portion of today's political pundits have forgotten that the First Ammendment is intended to apply to everyone and have spent most of their time for the last few years slandering and attempting to debase their "opposition."