Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe you need to fill a void. No one I know does. There is no void by not becoming superstitious unless one has trouble dealing with reality.
And authoritarian Marxist oppressive society? Crikey. 1950s red scare civics classes lost their teacher.
No I have no void to fill, but thanks for your concern. But I'll stand by what I wrote. Yes I believe there is an element of the progressive left that is obsessed with change and control. An example of this a social credit score such as the one they have in China. Your social credit score will be reduced on who you talk to on the phone, what friends you associate with, what web sites you view, etc.... If your social credit score is too low, the government will prevent you from getting a loan, traveling on trains etc. The ultimate high tech politically correct 21st century control tactic. Who is to say this won't spread to western nations? I believe I'll see in my lifetime.
Others examples of this from Europe such as Germany and England. Punishment even up to being jailed for tweeting or posting anything negative towards muslims, even if you point out individuals involved in crimes or such. Not insulting or degrading things.
In the United States we have many cases of harassment on College campuses to guest speakers for daring to speak against the perceived status quo. Even to the point of violence. Again an example of mob control with a progressive agenda.
On the topic of Climate change the left using the same hypocritical tactics we see in Christianity. Such as my carbon footprint is as large as yours, but I believe in climate change therefore I can get on my self righteous pedestal and preach. The belief in it is the forgiveness of the sin, yet we sin again with our ever larger vehicles.
Religion does not have the reach and effect it once had concerning societal norms and the influence on the masses and yes I believe the government is filling that void. I don't believe it comes in the same form as religion, but the populace is looking something to define influence and enforce our values and norms. And again as time goes on this will grow stronger and stronger. It's the nature of power and control. It never knows when to stop.
An authoritarian Marxist society? Why not. This would be the end result of complete and absolute control. Not now or even 50 years, but with a long enough time line, it could happen.
Last edited by Allan Trafton; 12-12-2018 at 04:27 PM..
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,029,445 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Allan Trafton
In the United States we have many cases of harassment on College campuses to guest speakers for daring to speak against the perceived status quo. Even to the point of violence. Again an example of mob control with a progressive agenda.
.
So you want those on the left to silence opposition to hate speech and have them sit down and take it. Got it. Their exercising their first amendment rights are bad to you. Got it.
Hopefully since you are so much against government control, you must be absolutely against government controlling women's bodies and their right to do with their body what they want. That type of government control sit solely with the far right.
So you want those on the left to silence opposition to hate speech and have them sit down and take it. Got it. Their exercising their first amendment rights are bad to you. Got it.
Hopefully since you are so much against government control, you must be absolutely against government controlling women's bodies and their right to do with their body what they want. That type of government control sit solely with the far right.
I find the Left's fascination with abortion interesting. You get all worked up on the idea that controlling one's body is so sacrosanct that you claim you cannot fathom interference on this one topic. Yet on so many other topics, you advocate for and love control.
Btw- the argument that abortion limits take away controlling one's own body is false.
For ex: getting a tatto, taking copious amounts of drugs and/or alcohol, living a dangerous lifestyle is all "controlling your own body".
However, if you want to kill another human being through abortion, that is beyond controlling your own body and interfering with someone else body. In the words of Bernie - YUUUGE difference.
Logically you cannot argue against this - but I am sure you will try.
Alan Trafton is correct in that many on the Left look at political control in the same way others view religion. Political control to enforce views of the world much like a power hungry cult leader. If you are honest with yourself, you will have to acknowledge some similarity.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,029,445 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider
I find the Left's fascination with abortion interesting. You get all worked up on the idea that controlling one's body is so sacrosanct that you claim you cannot fathom interference on this one topic. Yet on so many other topics, you advocate for and love control.
Btw- the argument that abortion limits take away controlling one's own body is false.
For ex: getting a tatto, taking copious amounts of drugs and/or alcohol, living a dangerous lifestyle is all "controlling your own body".
However, if you want to kill another human being through abortion, that is beyond controlling your own body and interfering with someone else body. In the words of Bernie - YUUUGE difference.
Logically you cannot argue against this - but I am sure you will try.
Alan Trafton is correct in that many on the Left look at political control in the same way others view religion. Political control to enforce views of the world much like a power hungry cult leader. If you are honest with yourself, you will have to acknowledge some similarity.
There is nothing to argue. Since we are not talking about killing another human being or another person's body. At all. If that were the case, that a fertilized embryo was a person, the discarding of them by medical facilities would be considered "murder", but of course that is completely insane and no one in their right might would make such an argument. A fertilized embryo is not a human being.
And it is the right that is consumed with abortion. If an individual, in the name of freedom, does not want to have one on their own body, they should decide not to have one, simple! If a person decides they want the freedom to control their own body, they should be able to do so. Pretty simple. It's called people being free and having government keep out of their personal decisions about their body. That's something the right wingers say they believe, but as usual, their actions show that is a lie.
And yes, of course having control over one's body includes tattoos, etc. I don't see anyone trying to illegalize those on the left. It's the left that primarily has been behind legalizing marijuana as well. For some other things, say, taxes on cigarettes, I don't see them being tried to be made illegal, just to limit impacts on the non user and to properly use regulations to do what regulations do: correct market failures by internalizing negative externalities into the actual retail cost of the product so that the market can work efficiently. If a product's price to the user does not reflect the real costs of the product, the market fails. I thought you were involved in business? I guess not. Otherwise you'd understand that.
There is of course merit to Alan's statement that religion has been used to coerce and control people and to keep those in power in power. Luckily, we have the ballot box, so we get to decide who represent us... to some degree, the extreme gerrymandering to reduce majority rights is a tact primarily (but not solely) practice by the far right to limit freedom. So yeah, there were minor glimpses of truth in his statement, but they were inversed.
Milwaukee is estimated to be 595,351 which is up 0.1% from 594,833 in 2010.
Milwaukee Metro is estimated to be 1,576,236 which is up 1.3% from 1,555,908 in 2010.
Then, Milwaukee is doing better than some other Rust Belt cities like Cleveland, Detroit, or Pittsburgh, which have seen population declines this past decade. I know Mke had a slight population decline between 2016 and 2017, but hopefully that was just temporary.
There is nothing to argue. Since we are not talking about killing another human being or another person's body. At all. If that were the case, that a fertilized embryo was a person, the discarding of them by medical facilities would be considered "murder", but of course that is completely insane and no one in their right might would make such an argument. A fertilized embryo is not a human being.
And it is the right that is consumed with abortion. If an individual, in the name of freedom, does not want to have one on their own body, they should decide not to have one, simple! If a person decides they want the freedom to control their own body, they should be able to do so. Pretty simple. It's called people being free and having government keep out of their personal decisions about their body. That's something the right wingers say they believe, but as usual, their actions show that is a lie.
And yes, of course having control over one's body includes tattoos, etc. I don't see anyone trying to illegalize those on the left. It's the left that primarily has been behind legalizing marijuana as well. For some other things, say, taxes on cigarettes, I don't see them being tried to be made illegal, just to limit impacts on the non user and to properly use regulations to do what regulations do: correct market failures by internalizing negative externalities into the actual retail cost of the product so that the market can work efficiently. If a product's price to the user does not reflect the real costs of the product, the market fails. I thought you were involved in business? I guess not. Otherwise you'd understand that.
There is of course merit to Alan's statement that religion has been used to coerce and control people and to keep those in power in power. Luckily, we have the ballot box, so we get to decide who represent us... to some degree, the extreme gerrymandering to reduce majority rights is a tact primarily (but not solely) practice by the far right to limit freedom. So yeah, there were minor glimpses of truth in his statement, but they were inversed.
It is the Left that brings up abortion all the time. It riles up your base I guess. You yourself are the one that injected the topic into this discussion (about an article on Milwaukie no less). Yea - who's the crazy one here.
For your benefit and education, here is photo of an 8 month old "fertilized embryo".
No I have no void to fill, but thanks for your concern. But I'll stand by what I wrote. Yes I believe there is an element of the progressive left that is obsessed with change and control. An example of this a social credit score such as the one they have in China. Your social credit score will be reduced on who you talk to on the phone, what friends you associate with, what web sites you view, etc.... If your social credit score is too low, the government will prevent you from getting a loan, traveling on trains etc. The ultimate high tech politically correct 21st century control tactic. Who is to say this won't spread to western nations? I believe I'll see in my lifetime.
Others examples of this from Europe such as Germany and England. Punishment even up to being jailed for tweeting or posting anything negative towards muslims, even if you point out individuals involved in crimes or such. Not insulting or degrading things.
In the United States we have many cases of harassment on College campuses to guest speakers for daring to speak against the perceived status quo. Even to the point of violence. Again an example of mob control with a progressive agenda.
On the topic of Climate change the left using the same hypocritical tactics we see in Christianity. Such as my carbon footprint is as large as yours, but I believe in climate change therefore I can get on my self righteous pedestal and preach. The belief in it is the forgiveness of the sin, yet we sin again with our ever larger vehicles.
Very interesting points. I don't consider China to be a "progressive" and "leftist" society, but I suppose it was back in the day.
The rise of leftist PC culture is very interesting. I agree that it exists and aims to change thought via language, and I also agree that some of it is unduly aggressive and uncivil. But what you refer to (angry protesters, etc.) is just a sliver of the progressive movement. Most progressives have defined views of how they would like to see things, but do not act in the way you state. The media make it look like they do, but it is just not the case. If it were, progressives would have taken over by now.
But even though the progressive movement has an angry, aggressive, and vocal fringe, is it completely a bad thing for society to change its thoughts and language--in a more voluntary way?
Decades ago, it was standard for people to use the "N word" and other scornful terms to describe minorities and marginalized people. Nowadays, most folks in the U.S. probably realize that those words carry baggage that we just don't need or want anymore. Why is that so bad? Human society has been changing ever since it began-- In English, we used to have obligatory words and phrases that designated the social caste of the person speaking and the person being spoken to. But the ideas and language of the 18th Century Enlightenment did away with much of that, and the rise of democracy since then has taken care of much of the rest. Is that so bad? Is it PC now that we no longer use expressions like "thou" and "My lord" in order to reinforce class/caste divisions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccjarider
I find the Left's fascination with abortion interesting. You get all worked up on the idea that controlling one's body is so sacrosanct that you claim you cannot fathom interference on this one topic. Yet on so many other topics, you advocate for and love control.
If I remember correctly, it's the Right that lost its poise right after Roe v Wade.
Quote:
However, if you want to kill another human being through abortion, that is beyond controlling your own body and interfering with someone else body. In the words of Bernie - YUUUGE difference.
Logically you cannot argue against this - but I am sure you will try.
I don't agree with IA's definition of the unborn child, but I also think it's wrong to suggest that people who support abortion are, by default, in favor of of killing unborn children. The issue has always been more complicated than that. Most people who support the practice of abortion consider themselves "pro-choice," meaning that women have the right to decide if they want to have an abortion or not.
Those who are against abortion generally see the life of the unborn child as equivalent to the life of the mother bearing the child. Therefore, abortion is wrong because it arbitrarily favors one human life over another.
Those who are pro-choice (that is, support abortion) generally see the unborn child as a subordinate, biological extension of the mother. Therefore, abortion is legitimate because, as long as the child is physically connected to the mother and biologically dependent on her, its life is not equivalent to her life, and ending that life is not seen as arbitrary.
I've also heard other arguments in support of abortion. For example, humans are merely members of the animal kingdom. If other animals have the right to end the life of unborn (and even born) children, why shouldn't humans? In contradistinction, many anti-abortionists (many christians) believe that humans are in a fundamentally separate category from other animals, and some of the folks do not accept the evolutionary connection between humans and animals to begin with. Thus, abortion is an inhuman (not just "inhumane") practice.
Quote:
Alan Trafton is correct in that many on the Left look at political control in the same way others view religion. Political control to enforce views of the world much like a power hungry cult leader. If you are honest with yourself, you will have to acknowledge some similarity.
It's an excellent point. To some extent, politics has become the religion of secular humanists in the Western world. OTOH, religion remains the religion of most conservatives.
Both groups have ideologically driven people who want to reshape society via change and control. My main objection to Allan's comment is that it makes it seem like all/most progressives are like this, but I think it's a vocal minority. In fact, there are probably more christians among the conservatives who want to change and control society, but they are not vocal, media bait in the way that liberal protesters are.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 37,029,445 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Empidonax
In contradistinction, many anti-abortionists (many christians) believe that humans are in a fundamentally separate category from other animals, and some of the folks do not accept the evolutionary connection between humans and animals to begin with.
Good grief. It's unbelievable that in this day and age these people can exist! Our educational system, I just have no words. We are great apes. We are animals. People need to stop living in fantasy lands and being superstitious. It greatly hinders our society from progressing.
But this is off topic. Milwaukee is a pretty darn cool affordable city. One of the two most liveable places in Wisconsin.
Good grief. It's unbelievable that in this day and age these people can exist! Our educational system, I just have no words. We are great apes. We are animals. People need to stop living in fantasy lands and being superstitious. It greatly hinders our society from progressing.
But this is off topic. Milwaukee is a pretty darn cool affordable city. One of the two most liveable places in Wisconsin.
Look, we just want you to stop killing babies that's all we're asking. Wait we're apes? I had no idea! so when the guy at the end of the bar called 44 a ape he was speaking from a scientific point of view. I had no idea, man, the things you learn in a Cudahy bar.
I don't agree with IA's definition of the unborn child
You may be confusing me with someone else. I haven't spoken about abortion on this thread.
But since we're talking about abortion, let me just start off by saying that I am a pro-choice Christian, but for years I was pro-life. I used to think that giving a baby up for adoption was the only moral way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, even if the pregnancy was the result of a rape.
I changed my mind when I was a substitute teacher for a 7th grade class. One of my students, Veronica, was tiny for her age—tiny, everywhere except for her belly, which was huge due to her pregnancy. She’d been molested by her uncle, who was arrested and jailed. Her poor and very devout Catholic parents wouldn’t allow Veronica to get an abortion, nor could she give the baby up for adoption. The family would keep the baby, and Veronica would be her mother. After all, the Bible is full of women who became mothers at that age.
Not everyone knew she’d been raped. A parent of another student didn’t want her daughter befriending Veronica because the girl was a typical “Mexican ****.” According to her, “They” start cranking out babies early so they can get more welfare and Veronica would likely have 4–5 kids before the age of 20, because “that’s just how they are.”
Veronica never finished 7th grade. I don’t know if she went back to school later.
So here’s the rundown on Veronica’s situation:
*She’d been raped by a family member.
*Even if her parents had allowed her to give the baby up, she had to endure the physical, psychological, and financial challenges that come with pregnancy, which is challenging even under the best conditions.
*She had to endure the psychological trauma of carrying her rapist’s baby to term and endure the cruel comments of judgmental people who didn’t know her situation.
*She was expected to be psychologically mature enough to be a mother to her rapist’s baby, who through no fault of its own, is a 24-hour reminder of Veronica’s rape.
*Her own growth and development was stalled. Any dreams she had for her future are not likely to ever come to fruition.
All because her parents valued the unborn child’s life over their own child’s life.
Abortion is never a great choice, but it would have given her a chance to have some semblance of a normal life.
Veronica was a child. She deserved better. This experience I had as a sub changed my stance on abortion.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
