This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 182183184 185186 ... 502
5491
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:46:11 PM »
It seems to me that the marriage debate centres around two prime definitions:
I) A cultural institution whereby society shapes and codifies the sexual behaviour which often leads to children, for the sake of those children.
Or, II) An emotional bond between two adults, which an incidental connection to procreation.
The first thing that strikes me is that the second definition doesn't seem to even justify having marriage as a social institution, at all. While I favour the legalisation of gay marriage, if marriage is simply an emotional bond then I don't really see any practical benefits of legal codification. (Full disclosure: I have no ambitions to get married myself).
Also, just out of interest, do we have any opponents of polygamy here? I've been drifting away from simply hewing to libertarian perspectives in the face of no counter-argument, but I remember a rather well-done post by LC ages ago that threw up some issues for polygamous relationships.
5492
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:36:24 PM »
Closest: Meta, obvi
statist shills 4 lief
5493
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:28:38 PM »
Is it any different in the UK?
Kind of. We don't have any, even nominally, religious parties. However, quite a few Tory ministers are open Anglicans, especially Michael Gove. David Cameron attends church, I believe, but I'd pen him for more of a fellow traveller than a committed Christian. But religion is such a non-issue in British culture that it's essentially just a nod to tradition; I don't think any politician is evangelical to a noticeable degree, and preserving the Church of England is more partisan conservatism than theological devotion. And we do have Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords, who're bishops.
5494
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:04:47 PM »
Privatisation is good to some extent.
We should catch a movie sometime.
Just purely out of interest, how do you vote in Belgian elections?
Depends on the issues, really. Voted for the Greens when I turned 18 and for the CD&V (Democratic Flemish Party) last year. I had a look around but couldn't find an English overview of their recent policies, so this will have to do if you care to translate it.
They're basically a pretty moderate party. Socially progressive and still somewhat conservative on the financial side. Very much in support of health care, access to education, social services and all that, but conservative in the sense of taxes (as in not taxing companies to the point that they leave the country). They're very big on supporting innovation, the (albeit well regulated) free market and proper education. A lot of the money they'll need will come from giving the states (Flandres and Wallonia) more power. In case you're unaware, Wallonia is pretty much dragging down the entire country in a lot of ways. Reforming the tax and social / health care regime while giving more power to Flandres are two of their major ideas.
That aside, they're pro-EU and pay a lot of attention to improving the legal system, which goes well by me. One of their main politicians is a man called Koen Geens, who used to be a professor of mine. Guy went to my university and Harvard, won numerous prizes with his doctorate, founded an incredibly prestigious and successful law firm, and went into politics while still teaching and being a high-end lawyer. I know that personal "bias" shouldn't mean a thing when it comes to politics, but he is genuinely one of the most sincere, friendly and extremely intelligent people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. He's been our federal minister of finance and is now the current minister of justice, looking to reform much of our justice system for the better, and has received a great deal of praise for all of that.
Overall a solid party with good ideas and no scandals. If you were Belgian, I'd probably expect you to go a bit more right / libertarian (N-VA, for example), but I think the CD&V wouldn't be a terrible choice for you either.
I have to ask, just how "Christian" are Christian Democratic groups on the Continent?
5495
« on: May 31, 2015, 04:32:34 PM »
A bit of a more light-hearted topic, admittedly, but I'd just be interested to see which user you think you are most similar to in your political opinions. Also, who do you think you're furthest from?
I'd probably say I'm closest to Turkey, and furthest from Verbatim.
5496
« on: May 31, 2015, 04:20:23 PM »
I totally know what denigrates means.
I means to kill all black people ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
5497
« on: May 31, 2015, 04:16:33 PM »
Saddam was going to control around 20% of the world's oil. That's why we invaded.
I know, I just don't think why we invaded denigrates the humanitarian consequences. . . At least up until 2011 >.> Don't get me wrong, though, I agree with you.
5498
« on: May 31, 2015, 04:10:20 PM »
Privatisation is good to some extent.
We should catch a movie sometime. Just purely out of interest, how do you vote in Belgian elections?
5499
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:33:05 PM »
They'll keep pushing the issue.
So will al-Qaeda. Capitulation out of convenience is never an option. If they want to fight, I'll buy them a one-way plane ticket to Syria.
5500
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:30:04 PM »
Just give a brief sentence of your views on each of these issues. I'm not looking for sage-like wisdom; even if you're completely ignorant, I'd like to know what your nonetheless ignorant views are on the matter. Vietnam War: Spoiler Largely justified; the Vietnam war is viewed as a failure mainly because public opinion tanked, despite the fact the real failure was after the war when the American government failed to live up to the peace accords. Iraq War: Spoiler Again, largely justified, despite the obvious blunders. The Iraqi people--especially the Kurds--will be better off in the long-run as a result of the war. Inflation vs. Unemployment (which is the most important thing to target?): Spoiler Unlike most conservatives, I'm not very hawkish on inflation. Rates of inflation approaching 10pc wouldn't scare me, assuming the right circumstances. But neither is unemployment a good target. I think the best course of action is to keep the level of nominal spending constant. European Union: Spoiler A horribly bureaucratic institution with a clear lust for power; should be dismantled immediately. As well as its failure of a pet project, the Euro. The Council of Europe is a much better template for European co-operation. Punishment vs Rehabilitation: Spoiler Of the two, rehabilitation is the most important. I do think it would be wise to note, however, that as much as half of violent offenders simply can't be rehabilitated. Almost certainly one-sixth cannot be rehabilitated in any reasonable timespan. Drug legalisation: Spoiler I favour the legalisation of all drugs, with graded regulations depending on the severity of the drug. Tax: Spoiler Corporate tax should be abolished outright, as should inheritance tax. Income tax should be drastically lowered and more emphasis should be placed on sales and property taxes; I could see something like a marginal rate of 80pc for sales taxes being justifiable. Pensions/Social security: Spoiler Should be defunded and shifted to private accounts immediately. Bank regulation: Spoiler Banks should be broadly deregulated and the government should take a massive step back from the financial system. Essential regulations like capital and liquidity requirements, publicly available plans-of-action should a bank be forced to close and the end of TBTF should have much more emphasis. These are all that come to mind, for the time being.
5501
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:15:03 PM »
O'Malley
5502
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:13:36 PM »
Life without parole is excessive, but the guy definitely deserves a harsh sentence.
Flee, stop being a statist shill.
5503
« on: May 31, 2015, 03:06:40 PM »
Life without parole is excessive for any crime, but--as Turkey notes--playing host to things like weapon trafficking is a fucking crime and can't be justified on the back of some nonsense libertarian rhetoric.
Not too concerned with the drug trafficking, though.
5504
« on: May 31, 2015, 02:59:23 PM »
As many Bongs will know (especially Mr P.), the NHS is a fucking religion over here. Mention anything even vaguely suggestive of not having the NHS completely operated by the government and suddenly you're some big business, corporatist shill. All of this despite the fact that the NHS is a relatively bad healthcare system (God help you if you're a politician and say that, though) and that most of the best forms of healthcare are more oriented towards competition and have less gate-keeping. Personally, I favour Social Health Insurance, as in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
5505
« on: May 31, 2015, 02:45:14 PM »
But not everyone does, even after the ACA and state programs. I went without insurance for a while because I simply couldn't afford to be taking home any less than 100% of my paycheck.
Let's not forget insurance costs are so high because companies aren't allowed to compete across state lines. I don't know your specific views on the best system of healthcare, but it doesn't stand to reason that a nationalised system would be any better.
5506
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:54:40 PM »
As a traitor or someone who did the right thing?
Undoubtedly a traitor. Releasing information about the collection of metadata I can get behind; but releasing over a million documents, most of which he didn't read and some of which fell into the enemy's hands, as well as talking about cyberwarfare with China and taking refuge in Russia all make him a traitor in my book.
5507
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:35:26 PM »
It just feels like government spying for the sake of spying.
It's a stretch to call it spying; whitepages.com has more personal information on you, which universal access no less, than the NSA does.
Eh, fair point. I understand where you're coming from, I just... I dunno, I don't exactly think it's morally right.
I can't say I blame you particularly, even if we disagree. The nature and suddenness of Snowden's leaks caused a lot of sociocultural upheaval.
5508
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:29:40 PM »
It just feels like government spying for the sake of spying.
It's a stretch to call it spying; whitepages.com has more personal information on you, which universal access no less, than the NSA does.
5509
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:23:39 PM »
If someone isn't getting along with them because they're a woman, that's the fault of the opposing person.
You're willing to sacrifice military efficiency because some soldiers could be bigoted? Come on, that really is tumblr-tier; the military shouldn't be forced to accommodate certain things because those certain things are "fair".
Guess we can't have blacks in the military. Some soldiers could be racist!
Well done ignoring the more important part of my post.
5510
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:09:29 PM »
Only problem is that I also am strongly in favor for nationalized health care.
Take it from a Brit--you don't want that. Go down the Canadian, German, French or even Singaporean route.
5511
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:07:23 PM »
I'm kinda using only that point because that's the NSA's excuse for collecting the data. I don't care what the NSA is saying, I care about the actual consequences of the programme--which, again, is almost universally regarded as valuable, even if it's never been the nail in the coffin it was promised to be.
5512
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:06:12 PM »
If someone isn't getting along with them because they're a woman, that's the fault of the opposing person.
You're willing to sacrifice military efficiency because some soldiers could be bigoted? Come on, that really is tumblr-tier; the military shouldn't be forced to accommodate certain things because those certain things are "fair". Nevertheless, evidence from the IDF suggests that it can threaten unit cohesion because male soldiers often become excessively protective of female soldiers.
5513
« on: May 31, 2015, 01:03:55 PM »
I've seen numerous reports though saying that this bill hasn't even once caught a terrorist act. Again, why are you using that narrow metric? That isn't the only thing which defines the efficacy of intelligence, and it's a bad metric nonetheless because there rarely ever is a "smoking-gun" you can point to; intelligence gathering is the tedious construction of numerous matrices, not the hangman's noose for every wrongdoer.
5514
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:54:07 PM »
All reports say the same thing.
That's just false. The collection of metadata is recognised, virtually across the board in the intelligence community, as valuable.
5515
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:52:57 PM »
Men and women should be held to the same standards
Would you waive that point of view if the presence of women, even competent women, was still detrimental to military operations overall, for whatever reason?
How would it be detrimental? There'd be no reason to have women just for the sake of them being women.
Could, for instance, threaten unit cohesion.
5516
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:47:40 PM »
Men and women should be held to the same standards
Would you waive that point of view if the presence of women, even competent women, was still detrimental to military operations overall, for whatever reason?
5517
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:46:06 PM »
Fair enough, but many would argue you needed that in wartime.
Regardless, it's no secret that if the founding fathers were around, they'd call for revolution.
Which circles back to my point that things can still be useful even if their intentions are not explicitly fulfilled.
5518
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:44:11 PM »
But the Constitution protects American's human rights, sooo... kinda a bad example.
It's also supposed to prevent executive over-reach, which has been happening pretty much constantly since FDR.
5519
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:36:05 PM »
But no, luckily the fact that men are stronger than women on-average and that men have higher 'peaks' than women in terms of strength doesn't really affect anything from a militaristic standpoint.
I'm not even sure what that means.
5520
« on: May 31, 2015, 12:31:32 PM »
Fair and square.
Soldiers are not atomistic. Having women on the front-line would threaten the cohesion of whatever units are in the field; evidence from Israel suggests that male IDF soldiers go into a kind of "frenzy" when their female comrades are wounded.
Pages: 1 ... 182183184 185186 ... 502
|
Show Posts