America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,018 comments
  • 1,697,724 views
The "libertarian" section on Reddit is full of weird people who I don't think are real libertarians. I've got my philosophy ironed out pretty well and its a hard position to argue with. Those people are spouting nonsense left and and right. A leftist libertarian? What the hell is that? Can that exist? That doesn't make sense to me. Logic and reason aren't something you can pick and choose.
I ran across a podcast called The Libertarian. The first episode I listened to was after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the guy was discussing free speech. He seemed to have a very lenient philosophy on balancing free speech with safety, kind of making it sound as if limiting offensive speech is OK, if agreed upon by society, as it can be considered a form of inciting violence.

He did explain that the better option would be to prevent the violence, but he clearly gave wiggle room for considering hate/offensive speech as inciting violence when dealing with groups like violent extremists.
 
I ran across a podcast called The Libertarian. The first episode I listened to was after the Charlie Hebdo attacks and the guy was discussing free speech. He seemed to have a very lenient philosophy on balancing free speech with safety, kind of making it sound as if limiting offensive speech is OK, if agreed upon by society, as it can be considered a form of inciting violence.

He did explain that the better option would be to prevent the violence, but he clearly gave wiggle room for considering hate/offensive speech as inciting violence when dealing with groups like violent extremists.
Correct. The pastor who attempted to burn a stack of the Koran was properly arrested in his tracks. No free speech for him! We Americans are a practical people, far better than Europeans in integrating and successfully assimilating Muslims and other immigrants. We are the true avatars of multiculturalism. We pay the price and reap the profits.
 
The "libertarian" section on Reddit is full of weird people who I don't think are real libertarians. I've got my philosophy ironed out pretty well and its a hard position to argue with. Those people are spouting nonsense left and and right. A leftist libertarian? What the hell is that? Can that exist? That doesn't make sense to me. Logic and reason aren't something you can pick and choose.

I'd say they'd be a civil libertarian, but (I'm only just guessing here) might feel that without some regulations, big businesses may infringe on the liberties of individuals.
 
The "libertarian" section on Reddit is full of weird people who I don't think are real libertarians. I've got my philosophy ironed out pretty well and its a hard position to argue with. Those people are spouting nonsense left and and right. A leftist libertarian? What the hell is that? Can that exist? That doesn't make sense to me. Logic and reason aren't something you can pick and choose.
I think it's because people conflate Democrat/Republican with Left/Right, and conflate the morality that comes with Left/Right with the economic side of it. So a dude from New Hampshire who doesn't have a problem with gay marriage or marijuana doesn't want to call himself right wing and be confused for Bubba from Texas even though they both support free market economics and gun rights.

I'm pretty lefty loony by libertarian standards when it comes to things like feminism, race/racism, gender identity, poverty, the environment, etc. but I don't consider myself a "leftist libertarian" because that doesn't make sense unless I believe it's the government's job to fix that stuff (which I don't). I hold a lot of the same views as leftists, but the difference is I don't believe it's a legitimate function of government to fix it.

I think it's because the idea of the state being in charge is so pervasive people don't consider any alternative. I agree that people in poverty can benefit from welfare programs, and education, but the government aren't the only group that can provide for people's welfare. I agree that discrimination based on race or sex is a problem in the workplace, but that doesn't mean I support government incentives or affirmative action.

Or they're hippies who are further left of Democrats on civil liberties (unless you're saying something offensive) but still believe Wal-Mart is evil and the rich should pay their "fair share".
 
Last edited:
DK
I'd say they'd be a civil libertarian, but (I'm only just guessing here) might feel that without some regulations, big businesses may infringe on the liberties of individuals.
So they're democrats basically. :lol:

Speaking of good libertarianism, I just made $2,432 in 12 hours all from the desk of my own home!

Seriously though. Being the good libertarian that I am, I finally realized while searching for my health insurance information that the health insurance packet which has been sitting on my desk since September was actually the Medicaid I signed up for as part of Obamacare way back when. Being that OSU required me to sign up for health insurance when I registered and I received the packet shortly after I moved to campus, I assumed it was the OSU health insurance. But it was the Medicaid. Then I learned that I could file a late petition to waive OSU health insurance because I already had coverage! Boom, $2400 refund. Thanks Obama! And thanks to all of my fellow citizens who helped make this possible by having jobs and paying taxes. @FoolKiller @Dotini @Danoff
 
I fail to see how that is different than someone belonging to the Catholic church and having a marriage or divorce not recognized. I had to agree to raise my daughter Catholic in order to marry my wife.

EDIT: Oh wait, we're skeered of Muslims.
So Sharia Law and all it encompasses is the equivalent of the Catholic Church not recognizing your divorce? I think you have some reading to catch up on.
 
So Sharia Law and all it encompasses is the equivalent of the Catholic Church not recognizing your divorce? I think you have some reading to catch up on.
I'm referring to this local group and how they work, not Sharia Law as a whole. The article specifically gave divorce as an example, which is why I used that. Hell, it even relates it to how the Catholic Church works.

They are using Sharia law to settle civil disputes in family and business matters. The same can be said of anyone who uses a priest or other religious leader as an arbitrator in something like a divorce. They aren't enforcing Sharia criminal law.

They are using their faith to settle non-criminal matters. So do many Christians, and some churches will also excommunicate you if you do not follow how their faith says to handle it.

Until Breitbart, using their most excellent and professional journalistic skills, can provide me with examples of them requiring things like the cutting off of hands, I'm not seriously concerned.
 
Ted Cruz for President!

Also.

Isn't this getting a bit ridiculous?

Come on. 900 million poured into a campaign?
Ahh...Cruz's Mom is 'Murican..that explains it.

This kind of campaign funding seems ridiculous to me and it happens on both sides of the aisle. I read about Hilary's warchest a few days ago and I suspect there are more than one or two billionaires behind her as well. It's a bizarre system IMO and even more bizarre that it all goes on out in the open and no one really seems to want to do anything about it beyond paying lipservice to he idea of campaign finance reform. Perhaps because both sides benefit tremendously from it.
 
The Presidential elections are just a really expensive (ridiculous) version of American Idol. But a lot more enjoyable to watch. So many stupid things are going to be said. Such much poo will fly.

I love it.
 
The Presidential elections are just a really expensive (ridiculous) version of American Idol. But a lot more enjoyable to watch. So many stupid things are going to be said. Such much poo will fly.

I love it.
It all comes down to who makes the fewest mistakes and who has the fewest ghosts in their closet really.
 
I fail to see how that is different than someone belonging to the Catholic church and having a marriage or divorce not recognized. I had to agree to raise my daughter Catholic in order to marry my wife.


EDIT: Oh wait, we're skeered of Muslims.
The Beebs:
 
What? This is news to me. Care to elaborate?
To be married in the church, by a priest. We could have had a non-Catholic wedding that the church recognized, but my wife is very devout.

The Beebs:

Nothing is happening in these cases that makes it different from many non-Sharia marriages. These women could just leave or take legal action, but they are scared of what the consequences could be. This happens in white, rural, conservative Christian marriages too. I attended a Christian service where the pastor focused on the submissive duties of the wife.

It is ridiculous for someone who wants controls of their life to choose to live under sharia law, but they choose it.

Would you suggest we outlaw Sharia groups from ever forming?
 
Nothing is happening in these cases that makes it different from many non-Sharia marriages. These women could just leave or take legal action, but they are scared of what the consequences could be. This happens in white, rural, conservative Christian marriages too. I attended a Christian service where the pastor focused on the submissive duties of the wife.

It is ridiculous for someone who wants controls of their life to choose to live under sharia law, but they choose it.

Would you suggest we outlaw Sharia groups from ever forming?
It's easy for you and I to say, "these women could just leave or take legal action" but we both know it's not that simple. I think there are many parallels between what a Muslim woman would face if she stepped outside the Sharia process and an abused or battered woman trying to leave her abuser, when the rest of the world sees him as a "nice guy". If you grow up in a culture where as a woman you're treated as a second class citizen from birth, I don't think it's like flipping a switch and suddenly being able to adapt and take advantage of the freedoms and equality that being an American offers you. They still have to live in that community, they still have to raise their children and face their own family. I see this adoption of Sharia in Texas as nothing more than finding a publicly informal but privately brutal way of oppressing women and ensuring they are under the foot of their husbands and don't dare divorce or be treated as an outcaset in their own social circle.
 
It's easy for you and I to say, "these women could just leave or take legal action" but we both know it's not that simple.
What the hell is a "sharia councel"? I don't know about the UK but the US is a land of law. Religion is not above that. No religious organization can obligate its members to submit to illegal activities.
 
This whole Sharia law deal can be wrapped up with one simple explanation.

In contract law in the US, the parties involved in a contract can make as a condition of the contract in question that the mechanism of enforcement of the contract would have to fall under Sharia law. The same could be said of any contract with the enforcement mechanism founded under Messianic Law, or other such religious legal systems that are out there. Why? Because the contract in question only effects the parties involved. They could add a third party to said contract, but they can't enforce that contract on an unwilling third party. That is the nature of contract law.
 
It's easy for you and I to say, "these women could just leave or take legal action" but we both know it's not that simple. I think there are many parallels between what a Muslim woman would face if she stepped outside the Sharia process and an abused or battered woman trying to leave her abuser, when the rest of the world sees him as a "nice guy". If you grow up in a culture where as a woman you're treated as a second class citizen from birth, I don't think it's like flipping a switch and suddenly being able to adapt and take advantage of the freedoms and equality that being an American offers you. They still have to live in that community, they still have to raise their children and face their own family.
Please, come to the rural Bible belt. I have some women I would like you to meet. Ignore the broken nose, black eye, and weird limp. She just ran into a door and then stumbled down the stairs. She doesn't have a negative thing to say about her husband because her religious beliefs, and those of the community she lives in, are that she is to be subservient and respectful of him at all times. And ignore the rumors that she was forced to have sex with her husband at gunpoint. Just because the community thinks that marital rape is not a thing doesn't mean it actually happens.

Her son? He broke his arm on the playground.

I see this adoption of Sharia in Texas as nothing more than finding a publicly informal but privately brutal way of oppressing women and ensuring they are under the foot of their husbands and don't dare divorce or be treated as an outcaset in their own social circle.
But it is just not sharia law. I still have yet to see anything different between them and what I see some very conservative Christians doing. Every aspect of that lifestyle is despicable, but it is not just sharia law. People like Breitbart ignore that this kind of stuff happens to white, Christian women every day, but attach it to the word Muslim and it is a crisis.

If you really want to stop that behavior you won't act as if those who follow sharia need to be acted against, but that anyone, anywhere who acts that way should be acted against. Outlaw the behavior in all instances. Currently, many places have laws where if the battered spouse won't press charges then police cannot legally intervene. I saw it happen with a friend just a week ago.

I suspect that the issue is that people who react to this think that this behavior is so horrible that it is already dealt with and then you get a news story about sharia law and everyone thinks they are the only ones living this way because they openly state it. If someone is going to live and think in a deplorable way I would prefer they be open about it. At least then I know who these people are. It is far easier to identify those that need help than the stay-at-home mom (because women shouldn't work) who only goes out for groceries and church.

Depending on the place and local laws spouse abuse is illegal already. You can't make it more illegal or force a specific religious group to face new specific laws that would bring it to light. You can't force someone to recognize a divorce or think differently. The only way to help these women is to break through their upbringing or beliefs so that they will feel it is OK to seek legal action. The law is doing all it can without police being present at the time of the abuse.
 
Is it just me, or is Breitbart.com like an American Daily Mail?
 
DK
Is it just me, or is Breitbart.com like an American Daily Mail?
No, this is an incorrect impression. Breitbart is basically a one man band, and his site is not considered mainstream. DailyMail, on the other hand, is a very large and professional establishment, and considered mainstream. For example, they have science writers and even their news articles are considered acceptable sources for citation on prestigious forums for professionals such as physicists. Believe it or not.
 
DK
Is it just me, or is Breitbart.com like an American Daily Mail?
I often have to double-check Breitbart articles for accuracy. If they don't have a source link for me to follow I will look for another news source first. The same thing happens with Info Wars and RT. RT seems to do a pretty good job in a lot of cases, but a viewer should not forget that they are essentially a propaganda service for Russia.


The difference from all of these and Daily Mail though is that Daily Mail is a widely published newspaper, whereas these guys are all online-only. I have found the online-only thing does not lend itself to high quality fact checking.


I'll stop before I go into a full on media rant.
 
This whole Sharia law deal can be wrapped up with one simple explanation.

In contract law in the US, the parties involved in a contract can make as a condition of the contract in question that the mechanism of enforcement of the contract would have to fall under Sharia law. The same could be said of any contract with the enforcement mechanism founded under Messianic Law, or other such religious legal systems that are out there. Why? Because the contract in question only effects the parties involved. They could add a third party to said contract, but they can't enforce that contract on an unwilling third party. That is the nature of contract law.
Having dealt with a number of battered and abused women over the years I can tell you that quoting them "legalities" means nothing if you are scared to death of your husband, his family, your family, of the threat of losing your kids, of the threat of them taking the kids back to the home country, of being shunned in your community etc. etc. etc. In these situations, the economic, emotional and social pressure are often far more important to those involved than the letter of the law.

No, this is an incorrect impression. Breitbart is basically a one man band, and his site is not considered mainstream. DailyMail, on the other hand, is a very large and professional establishment, and considered mainstream. For example, they have science writers and even their news articles are considered acceptable sources for citation on prestigious forums for professionals such as physicists. Believe it or not.
Since we're talking about fact checking...

Breitbart is definitely not a one-man band, the London office alone has 10 staff, and it's no longer "his" site since "he" is now deceased. What is "mainstream"? They "only" rank in the 1700's overall on the net, but that's higher than MSNBC for example which isn't too bad, especially considering they have no TV network or print media to provide support.
 
Last edited:
But it is just not sharia law. I still have yet to see anything different between them and what I see some very conservative Christians doing. Every aspect of that lifestyle is despicable, but it is not just sharia law. People like Breitbart ignore that this kind of stuff happens to white, Christian women every day, but attach it to the word Muslim and it is a crisis.

Quite right.

You also have examples from within the Orthodox Jewish community, with women having no right to divorce (under religious law) and many, many cases are still ongoing of women in abusive and non-abusive relationships being effectively held hostage by the husband who is refusing to grant a divorce.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26446360
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nally-breaks-free-after-48-years-1904136.html

Not only that but you have the same sect also forbidding women to drive:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-22/im-woman-america-and-i-wasnt-allowed-drive
http://forward.com/articles/2065/hasidic-village-keeps-women-out-of-the-driveres/


An almost identical parallel can be drawn to Christian sects that also limit the rights of women and children, such as those that wrote a 'self-help' book that teaches how to beat children in a biblical fashion (and has resulted in death) or the repeated cases of children being denied medical help on Christian religious grounds.

All faiths have sects within them that use ancient nonsense to justify limiting the rights of others, and all of them should be condemned equally. Yet both Judaism and Christianity, which have a much bigger lobbying influence in many western countries, seem to often get a blind eye turned to them.

DailyMail, on the other hand, is a very large and professional establishment, and considered mainstream.
That's true (unfortunately)

For example, they have science writers and even their news articles are considered acceptable sources for citation on prestigious forums for professionals such as physicists. Believe it or not.
One would only cite the Daily Mail of you wanted to provide an example of an organisation to avoid citing (unless you wanted to provide an example of unashamedly biased, inaccurate and scaremongering nonsense).

Personally I would rather not give them the click count, lest they go and use the added support to rejoice in the greatness of fascism again.
 
Last edited:
Breitbart is definitely not a one-man band, the London office alone has 10 staff, and it's no longer "his" site since "he" is now deceased. What is "mainstream"? They "only" rank in the 1700's overall on the net, but that's higher than MSNBC for example which isn't too bad, especially considering they have no TV network or print media to provide support.
All I know for a fact is I can use DailyMail as a citation on my physics forum, but not Breitbart. Go figure.
 
Quite right.

You also have examples from within the Orthodox Jewish community, with women having no right to divorce (under religious law) and many, many cases are still ongoing of women in abusive and non-abusive relationships being effectively held hostage by the husband who is refusing to grant a divorce.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26446360
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...nally-breaks-free-after-48-years-1904136.html

Not only that but you have the same sect also forbidding women to drive:
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-01-22/im-woman-america-and-i-wasnt-allowed-drive
http://forward.com/articles/2065/hasidic-village-keeps-women-out-of-the-driveres/


An almost identical parallel can be drawn to Christian sects that also limit the rights of women and children, such as those that wrote a 'self-help' book that teaches how to beat children in a biblical fashion (and has resulted in death) or the repeated cases of children being denied medical help on Christian religious grounds.

All faiths have sects within them that use ancient nonsense to justify limiting the rights of others, and all of them should be condemned equally. Yet both Judaism and Christianity, which have a much bigger lobbying influence in many western countries, seem to often get a blind eye turned to them.
Thank you for stating the obvious. Of course they should all be treated with equal contempt, including the attempts to bring Sharia Law into the western world. It has no place here and neither does anything else that so obviously challenges the freedoms and equality we've been working toward these many years.

Obviously I need to do more research when criticising Islam. One needs to be very careful not to show any special criticism of Islam lest the assumption be made by omission, that we might, for example, support the abuse and mistreatment of women in other religions/faiths, but condemn it in Islam. Because it makes logical sense of course to an enlightened person, that a Muslim beating a woman is bad, but an Hasidic Jew or Orthodox [insert religion here] beating their women is good and therefore we have to go to great pains to point out that we don't feel that way, lest it be assumed that we do, which seems to be the norm. The assuming part I mean.

All I know for a fact is I can use DailyMail as a citation on my physics forum, but not Breitbart. Go figure.
And I can use gum to temporarily patch a leak in drain pipe, but not in a supply pipe. Go figure.

If that's your apology for posting incorrect information about Breitbart, apology accepted.
 
This whole Sharia law deal can be wrapped up with one simple explanation.

In contract law in the US, the parties involved in a contract can make as a condition of the contract in question that the mechanism of enforcement of the contract would have to fall under Sharia law. The same could be said of any contract with the enforcement mechanism founded under Messianic Law, or other such religious legal systems that are out there. Why? Because the contract in question only effects the parties involved. They could add a third party to said contract, but they can't enforce that contract on an unwilling third party. That is the nature of contract law.
Bull honky. No contract terms can violate actual law. If they do, the contract is unenforceable.
 
Bull honky. No contract terms can violate actual law. If they do, the contract is unenforceable.
I occasionally write contracts for the state. You would be surprised at the stuff that you can put into a contract as penalties or describing how a dispute should be handled.

In the case of these marriages, they might be able to seek a legal divorce but their culture will not recognize it and they would be in fear for their lives.
 

Latest Posts

Back