Liberals and emotion

[Thundercat]

How does that change the morality of abortion/sex? It just changes the consequenses of said actions.

You think children didn't work until the industrial age?


Again, how does a publication change whether or not it's moral to look at naked people? This is a right of free speech and expression. I may or may not like it, but it doesn't infringe on my rights so I shouldn't get upset.

Huh?


Took warfare that has existed from the dawn of man to the logical extension

-don't work as people like to believe they do.

So, can you show me a place where suddenly morality was altered because of a new technology? Even the internet didn't really change morality. It simply gave people new avenues to do what they wanted to do.

This is why you have to base laws on priniples and not feelings/personal experience.

Swift . . . you don't want a history lession do ya'?
I'll be brief, but if someone walks into my cubicle I'll have to go. Jus' warning ya, now.
1.Before the invention of the latex condom how did people in western society behave in reagrds to sex/marriage/children/abortion?
How did young people meet before the invention of the "singles bar" of 2006?
Was it the same as in the 70's with clubs like "Studio 54"? Probably. But what about before then, say the beatnick generation in the 1950's? What about in the 40's during WWII? How about during the 1920's during Prohibition? What about the 1890's? What were a woman's options if she were poor, pregnant, and un-married? You don't think that the invention of latex condoms changed how people behaved? What about the invention of Penicillin? You don't think that people's behaviour, or morality changed after that? Now wait until there's a cheap cure for AIDS . . . let's just say for a $1 a pill you can now have sex with anyone without having to worry about AIDS, Herpes, Crouchrot . . .hell, man, anything under the sun.
Do you think the Puritians at Jamestown (circa 1690) behaved the same way that we do now in America?
I'm gonna find out who you are and hunt cha' down if you say yes--I'm being facetious of course. Don't want to have a visit by the FBI.

2. Of course children worked before the industrial age. But did you ever in the history of the galaxy see the type of wanton cruelty of child labor at the turn of the century--the last century? Take Singer's invention the sewing machine. Nice machine with a noble purpose, people were no longer required to take their clothing to a specialist, i.e a seamstress, a tailor, whomever, to have them mended; now they could perform those duties at home. But what if the moarly corrupt rented an aprtment building in early 1900 with a hunderd rooms, and in each room was a hundred sewing machines . . . Sweat shop in the making! Now poor, ignorant immigrant women would be 'forced' into 12-16 hour days.
Now let's say there's a fire in the sweatshop--about a dozen or more of the women are killed. Now, let's talk about morality changing the law through emotion.
After the public outcry new laws are put into place. No more sweatshops, at least not in the U.S. of A.. All buildings have firecodes now. Business building and warehouses have to have esacpe routes, fire extinguishers, fire escapes, sprinkler systems--since sprinkler systems aren't good enough for some, Halon systems--fire retardent materials, electrical codes ,etc. etc. . .
Then add the 8 hour work day--mandatory lunch and breaks, paid vacations, sick leave . . . Thank God for Liberals and their asinine emotions!

3. I think you pretty much answered your own question here, bud. I feel the same way. But if you went back to when Playboy first came out and the Public outcry that followed!! Yeah, the First Amendment's the First Amendment . . . but I'm telling you that there are people out there who would love to change it, abolish it, whatever!
Then you have Hustler magazine coming out 20 years after Playboy. Now that's a vulgar@$$ magazine! Larry Flint was shot because of it. His First Amendment right to publish that magazine didn't amount to squat! He got shot! Me, I call it vulgar then move on.
Do you think the Puritains would've objected?
I keep picking on them; so how about the Victorians in England?
How about the Religious Right in this country right now? You don't think they get a little emotional about the moral corruption of our society, so much so that they go on talk shows and blame a lot of it on Larry Flint, Hugh Hefner, and other? Personally, I wish they'd blame it on MTV!
4. The Cottongin and slavery, my friend! I let you figure that one out. I have a habit of turning into Malcolm X from time to time--something my boss wouldn't like right now.
5. & 6. History Channel will have the answers! Plus I know a few professors who'll recommend about 200 books for ya read. To be painfully brief, take a look at the warfare of the Greeks and compare it to the warfare of, say WWII. With a sword the average Greek, Trogan, Persian, Roman could engage in and maybe kill 5 of the enemy in an afternoon. A soldier in a machine mounted tank in WWII could hose down hundreds in a matter of minutes. A bomber formation could level a city, tens of thousands dead in a matter of minutes! Forget about the destructive magnitude of atomics! Tokyo, Dresdan, Berlin, Lenningrad . . . modern weapons cause so much destruction that the ancients would puke just thinking about it. Do you thin that the ancient would systematically round-up civilians--not enemy soldiers, now--but civilians and send them off to death camps to be poisoned, burned, experimented on, shot?
Because WWI, WWII and other wars were so terrible--the indescriminate slaughter on a staggering scale--I think it's the reason why certain nations perfer precision guide munitions. Note I didn't say "smart-bomb"--no such thing as a "smart-bomb". Hence, a change in morality pushing a change in technology, pushing a change in law . . . once again. Look, the massive loss of life on September 11, 2001 pushed President Bush to in act a preemptive strike against Iraq.

7. Hybrids, well give it another 10-20 years. Frankly, if I were King of the World we'd all be driving them--let the racing drivers have the fun machines with high revs and horsepower! But that's just me.

But really Swift, you should take a few history classes. Not that sugar coated Disney World stuff--I mean real history! How many people today think that Rosa Parks started the civil rights movement in the U.S.? Too many! I mean you can pick up a few things on the History channel, the Discovery channel, A&E sometimes . . . But to find history and come to your own conclusions regarding how emotions affect the law, affect technology, affect morality and back again--you'll have to spend some time in a library researching these things. And when you think you've had enough you're gonna have to dig deeper, review official government documents, talk to professors of history and dig further. I Minored in history and it can be fun, but tedious as hell--not nearly as fun as playing Gran Turismo 4. Mark my words, a few decades from now a lot of people are gonna think that Kazunori Yamuchi invented racing games!

 

[Swift]

That's all great. And not once did I deny or refute any of what you said.

But I'm still trying to figure out how that directly effected what is moral and what is not. Did those inventions change principles? Slavery/child labor has ALWAYS been bad. More or less of it doesn't make it any better or worse.

I just think your missing the point of what I'm saying. You're mentioning a lot of great technological advances. I'm just trying to figure out what they have to do with principles.

EDIT: After reading your entire post. I was wrong. I don't even think you understand the concept of what I'm talking about.

Then add the 8 hour work day--mandatory lunch and breaks, paid vacations, sick leave . . . Thank God for Liberals and their asinine emotions!

Uh, those are all voluntary in most states by the companies.

How about the Religious Right in this country right now? You don't think they get a little emotional about the moral corruption of our society, so much so that they go on talk shows and blame a lot of it on Larry Flint, Hugh Hefner, and other? Personally, I wish they'd blame it on MTV!

Of course the religious contingent is annoyed and outraged by what goes over the airwaves. But that didn't change their principles. They've always stayed the same.

4. The Cottongin and slavery, my friend! I let you figure that one out. I have a habit of turning into Malcolm X from time to time--something my boss wouldn't like right now.

I answered this one already.

Do you thin that the ancient would systematically round-up civilians--not enemy soldiers, now--but civilians and send them off to death camps to be poisoned, burned, experimented on, shot?

Yes, a lot of "ancient" societies did just that.

Because WWI, WWII and other wars were so terrible--the indescriminate slaughter on a staggering scale--I think it's the reason why certain nations perfer precision guide munitions. Note I didn't say "smart-bomb"--no such thing as a "smart-bomb". Hence, a change in morality pushing a change in technology, pushing a change in law . . . once again. Look, the massive loss of life on September 11, 2001 pushed President Bush to in act a preemptive strike against Iraq.

Hmmm...Our priniples were always the same. Defend the nation from the enemy. HOwever, with 9/11 we got a shot in the arm to actually uphold those principles. It had nothing to do with morality(it did for the terrorists) But that's been a principle of this nation since it was founded.

7. Hybrids, well give it another 10-20 years. Frankly, if I were King of the World we'd all be driving them--let the racing drivers have the fun machines with high revs and horsepower! But that's just me.

This really hurts your entire argument. It's all on how you "feel".

But really Swift, you should take a few history classes. Not that sugar coated Disney World stuff--I mean real history! How many people today think that Rosa Parks started the civil rights movement in the U.S.? Too many! I mean you can pick up a few things on the History channel, the Discovery channel, A&E sometimes . . . But to find history and come to your own conclusions regarding how emotions affect the law, affect technology, affect morality and back again--you'll have to spend some time in a library researching these things. And when you think you've had enough you're gonna have to dig deeper, review official government documents, talk to professors of history and dig further.

Show me one thing that resulted from the civil rights movement that wasn't already covered in the constitution but people were able to "get around"? There is nothing. All of that garbage was unconstitutional from the jump, but it was allowed to endure because the government(federal and state) allowed it. I HATE what my family had to go through during that time. But it doesn't change the principle that all citizens in the country are equal under the law.

I Minored in history and it can be fun, but tedious as hell--not nearly as fun as playing Gran Turismo 4. Mark my words, a few decades from now a lot of people are gonna think that Kazunori Yamuchi invented racing games!

Scary, but it might be true.

 

[Thundercat]

It's a good thing that it's a slow day in the office!!
But Swift . . . I don't know what to think of ya' brother. I don't want to be mean or condesending . . . frankly which is all too easy on the internet when you don't have to look your opponent in the eye.

Question 7. Was simply my attempt at sarcastic humor. Obviously, if I'm a website called GT Planet, you should know where my loyalty lies!! Last week I watched the Hungarian GP and I'm like: "Go Jenson, go--com'on get the win. . . sure is a pity 'bout all that gas these are wasting with gas prices averaging over $3 a gallon in the U.S.--oh, well--com'on Jenson, don't make a mistake, hang in there!!!

Now your other counter arguments are more or less semantics. I say there's a quarter on the table, you say, "no, it's 25 cents."

1. You're gonna have to do better than that, m'friend. They even have lunch breaks in the army--unless they're in the field of course! Labor unions.
Why do we have labor unions. The AFL-CIO is the biggest in the nation. Then add the ATU, APWU, AFGE . . . hell, even major league baseball and the NFL have labor unions. Can you imagine NFL players hitting each other at bonecrushing speeds without league mandated saftey equipment? And not getting comspensation when they get hurt?
Look at all the mining disasters of the past year. One of the most tragic aspects of the Sego mine disaster was that the company said over and over that new saftey features were being implimented; but what happened? Twelve miners suffered horrible deaths!
Sacarsm warning: Show me a state where the boss can make any employee work 12 hours a day, everyday, without breaks, without sick-leave, without paid vacation and I'll be the first one to move there!

2. Religious contingent is one of those is it a quarter or 25 cents deals. moving on.

4. DITTO

5. I have to respectfully but firmly disagree!! The "ancients" have nothing on us "moderns"-- I'll define moderns as 20th and 21st century. Yeah, a few of the Aztecs might've run wild and killed a few thousand here in there in what is now modern day Mexico. But it's nothing compared to the firebombing of Dresdan. The bloody death toll of Myans and Aztecs over centuries summed up in one night of bombing by allied warplanes.
How many Jews died in gas chambers? Millions! Isn't that more than the total number of people that have be killed in wars since before Christopher Columbus 'discovered' the Americas.
The total number of people killed during WWII is over 50 million! Were ther even that many people on this planet before the arrival of Jesus Christ?
Let's not forget the killing fields of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
In this modern age we can kill people by the bushel! And do with about as much emotion as I feel typing this reply.

5. I wrote a preemptive strike against Iraq. I didn't write Afghanistan! I remember that morning vividly--frankly I was scared to death and sick to my stomach. I wanted the SOB's who did to pay. And that was AlQeida, the Taliban and any fool dumb enough to ally themselves with them.
All of that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussien and Iraq as stated in FBI and CIA reports over and over again.
Afterall, "He did try to kill my daddy," that's more or less a direct qoute and one of his arguments for going to war against Iraq. I saw it on the Daily Show with John Stewart the other night.

Lastly. Constitution. Hey, I feel ya' brother! I'm right there with you on this one. I do have a reply, but you had to use the word "principle"--DAMN!! Nothing to say.

Talk to ya later!

 

[Wolfe]

Hmmm, but I didn't mention the bible in my original post at all.

I didn't say you did.

Actually, I do think everything is black and white. Just that some people's white is others black. How do advances in technology change morality? I actually kinda know where you will go with that, but I'm interested to hear what you have to say.

Well then, we'll have to agree to disagree on the black/white/gray thing.

Mainly I was thinking of condoms, abortion, genetics/cloning...those kinds of things.

Condoms -- premarital or extramarital sex was pretty risky before condoms, not only because of disease (although most people were oblivious to it), but also because of unexpected pregnancies that could force a marriage (or a divorce, in the case of extramarital sex). With the advent of condoms, premarital and extramarital sex became much more risk-free, leading to a rise in the activity of both.

Now, of course, the morality of extramarital sex didn't change when condoms were invented. However, condoms did turn what was a relatively small problem into a much bigger one, and in the secular world, one could argue that condoms made premarital sex almost completely risk-free and socially tolerable.

Abortion -- When I refer to abortion here, I'm referring to the clean, modern-day process of an elected, induced abortion. Just like with condoms, the modern process of abortion turned a relatively rare moral issue into a much, much more common one. Of course, the morality of abortion according to religion has remained constant, but in the secular world, the morality of abortion is up for debate, much more so than the morality of premarital sex. As we all know, to this day there still isn't one solid answer on the legality of abortion within our country.

Abortion is a perfect example of how a medical advance brought about new questions of morality, and so is the next item...

Genetics -- Is it moral to create human clones? Is it even moral to use genetic engineering to create clones of other animals, or organs, or plants that are stronger and/or tastier? Certainly, this is something that was never addressed by our ancestors, and something that brought up new questions when it came about.



My point in all of this is like so -- everyone knows that women had no rights "back in the day." They do have rights today, at least in some countries. Does that mean that we should deny them the right to make the decision to abort their baby in a clean, surgical, relatively-risk-free fashion just because a bunch of guys many years ago think they shouldn't? Obviously, not everyone will agree on this, and I don't expect you to agree with me on it, but you can see what I'm getting at. Sometimes morals need to change to better reflect the values and principles of the society they're currently "governing."

Again, I know you never mentioned the Bible, Quran, or any other text. However, I did.

 

[Swift]

My point in all of this is like so -- everyone knows that women had no rights "back in the day." They do have rights today, at least in some countries. Does that mean that we should deny them the right to make the decision to abort their baby in a clean, surgical, relatively-risk-free fashion just because a bunch of guys many years ago think they shouldn't? Obviously, not everyone will agree on this, and I don't expect you to agree with me on it, but you can see what I'm getting at. Sometimes morals need to change to better reflect the values and principles of the society they're currently "governing."

Again, I know you never mentioned the Bible, Quran, or any other text. However, I did.

It's a principle that doesn't change with feeling. My principle is simply based on the fact that if you engage in sex life can be created. If you don't want the life, don't have sex. Others have the principle that life doesn't start before a certain time. It's not a feeling, but a stance based on observation of data.

 

[Pupik]

If over-use of emotion is strictly a liberal thing, then Rush Limbaugh is a liberal. Every one of his attempts at a coherent statement ends with him wheezing about how great it is to be a conservative, because it's all the media's/Democrat's/scientists fault, rather than trying to prove anything, or back it up with numbers, or unedited sound bites.

The minute anyone uses an over-emotional statement on me, I start to think a little more logically.

 

[Swift]

If over-use of emotion is strictly a liberal thing, then Rush Limbaugh is a liberal. Every one of his attempts at a coherent statement ends with him wheezing about how great it is to be a conservative, because it's all the media's/Democrat's/scientists fault, rather than trying to prove anything, or back it up with numbers, or unedited sound bites.

The minute anyone uses an over-emotional statement on me, I start to think a little more logically.

I didn't say over-use of emotion in sharing views. I said over-use of emotion to justify your views. Big difference. It's easy to get emotional about various political topics. But when you use your or other people's "feeling" to justify your stance, that's when it's wrong. As Foolkiller pointed out so very well earlier.

Also, while Rush certainly gets heated as many Americans do, he doesn't do what most liberals do. Which is simply blame conservatives/Bush for everything while offering no solution. He points out why the liberal point of view is flawed(most times).