Socially Right, Economically Left

[epronovost]

But if one labels another to be a bigot because of this view or the other, and then wants to deny their right to do X and Z, isn't that just as bigoted?

Deny them the right to do what?

 

[wellwisher]

It would be nice to see a proper balance for a change. Unfortunately the hatred for capitalism and even socialism will prevent people from meeting in the middle anytime soon.

The middle is not the sweet spot, when the crap is on one side of the stick. One good approach to determine the crap side of the stick, would be to allow the left and right leaning states, to go their own ways for experimental purposes. The right leaning states can practice free market capitalism, small government and Conservative culture in peace. The left can have big government and socialism and a liberal culture. They can also go their own way. The goal is to see what system works better in its pure form; side-by-side comparison in a common culture.

To do this fairly, for the experiment, the national taxes revenues, from each of the two "zones", needs to remain in each zone. Left leaning states tend to overspend, and many of their policies survive, only because the right is forced to pay for the waste through common taxes. The idea is to separate the revenue streams to simulate each, as the way of the entire country.

In current events, the price of gasoline has risen about 50% in the USA, since Biden took office. This extra expense; tax, for everyone is needed by the socialist Biden Government, to make the piece of crap electric cars look better in the free market. Even with free electricity to power these cars; free charging stations, these cars are not yet cost effective in a free market with cheap gasoline. Some cheating is required beyond free make forces.

In our experiment, since the right leaning states are no longer attached at the hip of the Biden Socialism, they can now maintain lower free market oil prices. The left states can use government to artificially drive up gasoline to $5.00/gallon; regulations and tax penalties, to where the electric car crap floats. This lofty goal and the extra hardship, will cause many leftist to cross the borders to get cheaper gas. The left still will need to depend on the right to help out with the financial woes that are created by big government in the leftist states. However, all money is green when it comes to the free market. This will enhance the multiplier affect of the free market in right states.

In the corona bailout leftist states needed the most bailout. The left is about skimming and scamming so there is a lot of systemic waste built in as decoy. This experiment will show why socialism will never work on the national scale. It is the crap at the end of the stick.

After a Socialist takeover, there will be no efficient Conservatives to cover the tab for waste. Without Catholics forced to pay for abortion, where does the money come from, if they play the game and get on the dole? Higher taxes will be one way. The indoctrination camps will dumb down everyone, until the boneheads who drive the economy into the ground, scrabble to get their share of the diminishing pie; Castro, before it is gone.

The young leftist need to experience the leftist politics, with their money pits, but without the bailouts. The right will be having budget surpluses, and will be able to get rid of the nonsense money pits, to shrink the government further; tax refunds.

 

[Yerda]

I believe all humans are equal before G-d in dignity and worth. Marriage, however, is a sacred bond that, to me, can only be sanctified by a man and a woman. I would allow gay marriage on the state, but would allow religious institutions to pull out. Man and woman marriage is the norm all throughout the world, do you think folks just pulled this out of their rears? It's because it's two opposites coming together to create a whole.
Sex based differences exist at the basest psychological level. I'm not saying every woman should be a housewife; I'm saying we should set up society so that she can be if she wants. Not sure what's wrong with that.

Hi, I'll try not to be argumentitive. In honesty I consider myself quite a socially liberal person and I think this seems tolerable.

I'd like to see a world where every major institution with the license to marry two people takes the view that the two people are the arbiters of what is sacred and why their union is important but we can all dream. There's enough room in the world for people with traditional views on marriage to have a place of their own if it's important to them.

I am curious though, how someone arrives at a position like yours. Is this a typical for someone with your religious beliefs?

The housewife issue is kinda interesting. Some women want to be a housewife (as do some men) and as long as they have the chance to realistically explore other possibilities then I don't see a problem. I'd rather see us focus our efforts on giving people the choices they need to find out what's best for themselves. If that's taking on considerable work load that is having children then I want them to be able to do it as well as possible. That seems to be a broadly liberal position to hold. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[JustGeorge]

Deny them the right to do what?

I remember awhile back, the Boy Scouts got a lot of slack for not allowing girls into the Boy Scouts. They eventually gave in and allowed this, but how much poo got flung at them for wanting to keep it to boys only? By limiting membership to boys were they insinuating girls to be inferior? I suspect not; it seemed they just wanted to keep their traditions.

There are other issues within the Boy Scouts, of course, and I'm not saying this is a perfect organization(I was kind of relieved when my son quit), but this issue is an example of a traditional group not being allowed to do things in their traditional way.

 

[Yerda]

I remember awhile back, the Boy Scouts got a lot of slack for not allowing girls into the Boy Scouts. They eventually gave in and allowed this, but how much poo got flung at them for wanting to keep it to boys only? By limiting membership to boys were they insinuating girls to be inferior? I suspect not; it seemed they just wanted to keep their traditions.

There are other issues within the Boy Scouts, of course, and I'm not saying this is a perfect organization(I was kind of relieved when my son quit), but this issue is an example of a traditional group not being allowed to do things in their traditional way.

Are the boys allowed to join the Girl Guides or Brownies or whatever?

 

[epronovost]

I remember awhile back, the Boy Scouts got a lot of slack for not allowing girls into the Boy Scouts. They eventually gave in and allowed this, but how much poo got flung at them for wanting to keep it to boys only? By limiting membership to boys were they insinuating girls to be inferior? I suspect not; it seemed they just wanted to keep their traditions.

There are other issues within the Boy Scouts, of course, and I'm not saying this is a perfect organization(I was kind of relieved when my son quit), but this issue is an example of a traditional group not being allowed to do things in their traditional way.

The problem though of ''wanting to preserve their tradition'' is that the Boy Scouts were a prestigious organisation for many years. Members of the boy scouts enjoyed employment advantages in many domains and networking opportunities that members of the girl scouts didn't due to the fact their organisation was less prestigious. Traditions have a cost.

 

[Suave]

I'm not drawing this out with you as it's not the point of this thread. However, you do not get to dictate to me when life begins. I believe it begins at conception and you aren't about to change my mind.

Please let us agree to have medical science determine when a human life's personhood begins. According to Wikipedia's article regarding the beginning of human personhood,
"In the years since the designation of brain death as a new criterion for death, attention has been directed towards the central role of the nervous system in a number of areas of ethical decision-making. The notion that there exists a neurological end-point to human life has led to efforts at defining a corresponding neurological starting-point. This latter quest has led to the concept of brain birth (or brain life), signifying the converse of brain death. The quest for a neurological marker of the beginning of human personhood owes its impetus to the perceived symmetry between processes at the beginning and end of life, thus if brain function is a criterion used to determine the medical death of a person, it should also be the criterion for its beginning.

Just as there are two types of brain death - whole brain death (which refers to the irreversible cessation of function of both the brain stem and higher parts of the brain) and higher brain death (destruction of the cerebral hemispheres alone, with possible retention of brain stem function), there are two types of brain birth (based on their reversal) - brain stem birth at the first appearance of brain waves in lower brain (brain stem) at 6–8 weeks of gestation, and higher brain birth, at the first appearance of brain waves in higher brain (cerebral cortex) at 22–24 weeks of gestation."

 

[Rival]

Please let us agree to have medical science determine when a human life's personhood begins.

No.

 

[Revoltingest]

No.

Aye, the beginning of life is a matter of definition.
Science can shed light on a fetus's development,
but any selection of a stage where it begins would
be arbitrary. Science ain't about moral issues.

 

[Suave]

No.

Why no just follow the science? This seems reasonable to me.

 

[Revoltingest]

I remember awhile back, the Boy Scouts got a lot of slack for not allowing girls into the Boy Scouts. They eventually gave in and allowed this, but how much poo got flung at them for wanting to keep it to boys only? By limiting membership to boys were they insinuating girls to be inferior? I suspect not; it seemed they just wanted to keep their traditions.

There are other issues within the Boy Scouts, of course, and I'm not saying this is a perfect organization(I was kind of relieved when my son quit), but this issue is an example of a traditional group not being allowed to do things in their traditional way.

I regularly hear about special girl-only programs, eg,
coding classes. They're praised as being empowering.
This might could possibly be a double standard, eh.

 

[JustGeorge]

Are the boys allowed to join the Girl Guides or Brownies or whatever?

To my knowledge, they haven't tried.

The problem though of ''wanting to preserve their tradition'' is that the Boy Scouts were a prestigious organisation for many years. Members of the boy scouts enjoyed employment advantages in many domains and networking opportunities that members of the girl scouts didn't due to the fact their organisation was less prestigious. Traditions have a cost.

I would think trying to focus on improving the girl scouts would have been a better option. Penalizing an organization for success doesn't really make any sense.

Everything has a cost. Integrating the two genders cost the organization as well, some in membership from those who didn't respect the switch, some in legal expenses. But we tend not to care about those costs, because the 'bad guys' pay them.

Personally, I'd like to see a Co-ed version of scouting develop, but I still respect the ideas of those who want to remain gender segregated.

 

[JustGeorge]

I regularly hear about special girl-only programs, eg,
coding classes. They're praised as being empowering.
This might could possibly be a double standard, eh.

I always steered clear of 'girls only' groups, simply from the fear that someone would try to 'empower' me. To me, being 'empowered' felt similar to stepping in warm cat puke with bare feet on a cold morning. Why did I need to be empowered? Why wasn't I fine the way I was?

Ugh... I think I spent half of youth dealing with people 'empowering'(patronizing) me.

 

[Suave]

Aye, the beginning of life is a matter of definition.
Science can shed light on a fetus's development,
but any selection of a stage where it begins would
be arbitrary. Science ain't about moral issues.

I trust in medical science to establish when an embryo could consciously experience pain. According to a study study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28 to 30 weeks after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness, they write" (JAMA 2005; 294:947-954)
Please reference: Fetal Pain

Based on the criteria of personhood involving being capable of consciously feeling pain, personhood doesn't begin until at least 28 weeks after conception.

 

[epronovost]

I regularly hear about special girl-only programs, eg,
coding classes. They're praised as being empowering.
This might could possibly be a double standard, eh.

Not exactly they are designed to encourage girls to participate in activities where they are underepresented and often pushed away from by a variety of factors from discimination, prejudice, harrasment, tokenism, etc. These are made to compensate for historical discrimination of women in certain domains. There are similar initiative for men in domains where they have been abscent like nursing or elementary school teaching.

 

[Revoltingest]

I always steered clear of 'girls only' groups, simply from the fear that someone would try to 'empower' me. To me, being 'empowered' felt similar to stepping in warm cat puke with bare feet on a cold morning. Why did I need to be empowered? Why wasn't I fine the way I was?

Ugh... I think I spent half of youth dealing with people 'empowering'(patronizing) me.

Unwanted empowerment, eh.
I wonder if A Cuomo does that too?

 

[Revoltingest]

I trust in medical science to establish when an embryo could consciously experience pain. According to a study study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), "a fetus is not capable of experiencing pain until 28 to 30 weeks after conception, when the nerves that carry painful stimuli to the brain have developed. Before that, the fetal reaction to a noxious stimulus is a reflex that does not involve consciousness, they write" (JAMA 2005; 294:947-954)
Please reference: Fetal Pain

Based on the criteria of personhood involving being capable of consciously feeling pain, personhood doesn't begin until at least 28 weeks after conception.

Light shed, yet choosing that stage as
life's beginning is still an arbitrary choice.
When does it begin?
I make no claims, finding the question unanswerable.

 

[Revoltingest]

Not exactly they are designed to encourage girls to participate in activities where they are underepresented and often pushed away from by a variety of factors from discimination, prejudice, harrasment, tokenism, etc. These are made to compensate for historical discrimination of women in certain domains. There are similar initiative for men in domains where they have been abscent like nursing or elementary school teaching.

Are there no reasons that boys might benefit from
single gender activities? I wouldn't rule it out.

 

[Suave]

Light shed, yet choosing that stage as
life's beginning is still an arbitrary choice.
When does it begin?
I make no claims, finding the question unanswerable.

Life and personhood are two different issues. Bioethicists attempt to answer the question of personhood, or when a human life attains moral standing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Life and personhood are two different issues. Bioethicists attempt to answer the question of personhood, or when a human life attains moral standing.

Complicated, eh.
It's a matter of compromise by groups with different views.