Why college students are so liberal.

Student Lounge College Life
121

<p>@delmonico – Okay from your mentioning of Israel I’m going to focus on Iran only and ignore anything having to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Since I told you to specify which countries you had a specific issue with and that was the only one you bothered to name. While we all agree that Ahmadinejad is a dangerous nut, it’s pure hypocrisy to scream at countries about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when we ourselves refuse to sign it (since we have several thousand nukes laying about this country of ours). Liberals just believe that with SOME dangerous nuts you need to try to solve things diplomatically instead of with a “shoot first, ask questions later” cowboy mentality. You know, try to talk with them and reach some form of agreement and then should that fail, THEN you blow their arses out of the water. </p>

<p>“Lack of Racial Profiling at the airports” This is um… a good thing you know. Racial Profiling is you know… bad? We’re not supposed to be in support of that, nobody with a brain is supposed to be in support of that. Affirmative Action, while it could be considered outdated now, was a requirement to make sure companies played ball and stopped acting like little racist screwballs with their hiring practices. there are some places that shall remain nameless where it would still be required because it’s the only thing keeping them from reinstituting a “straight male Christian whites only” policy</p>

<p>I’m glad you mentioned the “taxing of the rich” let’s blow that one up right now. Obama isn’t increasing the taxes on the rich, he’s removing tax CUTS to the rich. Do you get it? the rich already were paying reduced taxes (ie: not their fair share) and now Obama’s ending that practice. The rich are peeved because they don’t like the percieved increase of tax. Nothing’s being “increased” in the sense that a law was passed to increase them, Obama’s just letting them return to their normal, original level prior to the Bush tax cut. But good job thinking out that “some” taxing is a good thing so that you can keep schools, libraries, hospitals and the like open to everyone. Let’s look at the health care plan now… you mention being against public option, like most neocons. Let’s remind ourselves of why we had the need for health care reform in the first place: because someone without insurance who would have cost the insurance company a few hundred dollars for a hospital visit for the flu, can’t afford to go. So they wait and wait and BOOM, they’re in the hospital with pneumonia, costing the STATE $10,000 a day. That’s a 100% increase, and it’s spanned out over what could be up to two weeks for the person to recover. All because they can’t afford insurance. That right there is all the reason I need to support a health care option, the alternative is wasteful.</p>

<p>Since you appear to be pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, I’m not going to bother going into those unless you correct me. However, if you are against gay marriage and are not pro-choice, please list the reasons why to save me time in asking this in a follow-up post. </p>

<p>Notable Mentions: “reverse-racism” is a right-wing buzzword in practically 80% of cases, those other 20% are unique circumstances and in general can be solved through the same application of the process. </p>

<ul>
<li>If you’d like to get into the merits of Iraq and Afghanistan, let me know and I’d be glad to show you why the liberal ideology wins in those cases too.</li>
</ul>

122

<p>If you decrease something, and then undo the decrease, are you not increasing?</p>

<p>“If you’d like to get into the merits of Iraq and Afghanistan, let me know and I’d be glad to show you why the liberal ideology wins in those cases too.”</p>

<p>The case for staying in (not invading, which was widely supported from both sides) Iraq and Afghanistan is mostly argued from a nation-building neoconservative standpoint, not a traditionally conservative one.</p>

123

<p>obama = failed</p>

<p>hahaha</p>

124

<p>

</p>

<p>Humor me by doing the reverse – explain to me why you believe that gay marriage is neutral/good and why abortion should be a right. I hope that it will provide a nice dose of diversity of thought, at least in justifications for these things.</p>

125

<p>@Logic</p>

<p>It’s increasing in the most literal sense. But my point is that they’re complaining about having to pay taxes at the same non-cut rate as everybody else… It’s kinda like complaining that you have to pay full price for something instead of a sale price because the sale price expired 3 days ago (let’s not get into the fact that most stores would honor the coupon, it ruins the metaphor). Do you see how that’s riddiculous? “Ohh I’m not recieving my tax cut anymore, this isn’t America because I’m so spoiled I can’t pay my fair share in taxes”</p>

126

<p>“this isn’t America because I’m so spoiled I can’t pay my fair share in taxes”</p>

<p>Who is to decide what the fair share is? The sale metaphor is pretty clearly non-applicable by the way, since the sale is to draw new customers in to buy non-sale items and to continue to buy the formerly-for-sale item after the sale, but none of this applies since people are forced to pay taxes.</p>

127

<p>Wow, this thread has really blown up… Nobody’s even talking about students… or college anymore.</p>

128

<p>LOL It’s hilarious.</p>

129

<p>@Baelor</p>

<p>For gay marriage, let’s start by reminding everyone that LGBT couples want a CIVIL marriage, not a religious marriage. CIVIL marriage has been around since, essentially, the “dawn of man” and possibly before the first civilized societies in Mesopotamia. What I’m getting at is that it pre-dates religion in any “modern” sense; the argument that marriage is a religious institution (while it’s true of “religious marriage”) suggests that it started from the very beginning as a religious institution, this is fallacious. Right there alone prevents any rational religious argument from occuring, they have no business legislating who can and who cannot be civilly married. Their only concern can lawfully be with religious marriage and each pastor/priest/church official has to make that decision for themselves as to whether or not they’ll marry a gay couple in a religious ceremony. Religion needs to stay out of the civil matter entirely.</p>

<p>Of course they don’t so you can’t derive an “ought” from an “is” but therein lies my point. Without getting too heavily into scripture I can also destroy arguments regarding the Bible’s supposed condemnation of Homosexuality. For example: the word “abomination” did not exist at the time the Bible was written, the word “abomination” replaced in later versions, was the Hebrew word “toevah” or “ritualistically unclean.” You may remember “toevah” from the rules regulating how soon a man can sleep with his wife after she has her period, which makes her toevah. This, furthermore, was only supposed to refer to the high priests of the temple who were too holy to be defiled by sex, of ANY kind. But more than even that, modern scholars suggest that this condemnation was against a certain kind of rape, and not against homosexuality or sex altogether. </p>

<p>I could also argue that anybody who thinks this rule in Leviticus is the unchanging word of God how often they wear mixed cotton/polycotton blends, eat shellfish, and if they’ve stoned their disobediant children. Oftentimes I hear that those particular rules “were written for the time they were created in” and therefore, no longer apply. Yet when it comes to Homosexuality, the Bible cannot ever be changed and God’s word still applies on it… do you kind of see the hypocrisy there, hopefully? About either it’s ALL unchanging, or it changes? </p>

<p>Let’s look at some Native American cultures (a group who, traditionally celebrated Homosexuality, Heterosexuality, Bisexuality, Two-Spirit people, etc)… in some of these cultures, not only was Homosexuality a GOOD thing, but Homosexuals were High Priests/Priestesses, considered very very sacred beings. It was something to be celebrated, not condemned. A nice example is the book Daughters of Copper Woman, I read it in my Psychology of Women class last Fall, beautiful book. </p>

<p>Then of course, all the Civil Rights arguments, LGBT people can claim a LOT of discrimination and some have been tortured for being who they are. Watch 8, The Mormon Proposition, it contains a very graphic description of a gay man who went to Brigham Young University where a group of kids and professors “kidnapped” him to a closed-in room and forced him to undergo very violent and involuntary Reparative Therapy (which all legitimate science has shown does not work and is in fact, harmful). If you aren’t clenching your jaw by the end of the description… well, I can’t really help you. The man’s 40 now, and still it brings tears to his eyes, that’s the kind of torture he suffered.</p>

<p>But moving on, I’ll make my Abortion section shorter: Frankly I lean more towards being Pro-life. If I were straight, I would want my wife to talk with me about it before she went through with it: maybe we’re splitting up and she just doesn’t want to take care of the kid, but I do and plan to request custody upon it’s birth. I don’t think many women would go out and just have it done without consulting their husband first anyway, provided he’s not some abusive ****<strong><em>. But I recognize there are guys who ARE abusive *</em></strong>***s who might try to hurt the woman, so I see the logic behind not having a requirement that the husband be informed. But remember, I am a man, it’s not my body, I really have no say over it, nor should I. Women will ALWAYS have abortions, statistically, I would rather for societies sake, that these abortions be safe and not done in the back alley with a coathanger. There’s an economic benefit there too, saves Hospitals money when the woman doesn’t go into the emergency room with complications from a coat-hanger abortion. What about rape or incest? So the woman should have to have this completely unplanned baby just because a relative or some random ass on the street decided she was “asking for it” and needed to get their rocks off? That’s blaming the victim, and disgusting. People bring up the personhood of the fetus… well I’m not an expert and cannot provide my two cents on when exactly a fetus becomes a person, whether I believe it starts at conception, or at x-weeks. My opinion on the matter really shouldn’t matter because honestly, I feel sort of like people use it as a way to guilt-trip others. Like that documentary The Last Abortion Clinic [In Mississippi], basically they wouldn’t let the woman get an abortion until they do an ultrasound, and she “has” to look at it. As a Psychological means of trying to guilt-trip the woman out of it, that does severe Psychological harm and is disgusting. Or they’ll hijack copies of Planned Parenthood, but neglect to mention abortion as an option, or to reccommend any clinics, leaving the woman with no options. Does that make any sense? Can you see why this is kind of screwed up? </p>

<p>There are several more points I could bring up for each of them but this is getting huge already and these are some of the main ones.</p>

130

<p>

</p>

<p>Excellent. So, let us expand this beyond the structure of American law. In general, you do not feel that religion has a place in civil matters, correct? In other words, my religious beliefs should not influence the law beyond my vote (regardless of your opinion on whether it should influence my vote). What if I were to reject that notion? That would at least eliminate the impediment to rational religious arguments that you mention, unless you establish your view on religion and law as the sole correct one. I am not qualified to speak about whether religious opposition to gay marriage is constitutionally valid in the American context.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Obviously only relevant to those who use the Bible as the sole basis for opposition to homosexuality.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, I do not see hypocrisy. I see many ways out by means of interpretation of God’s Word. Of course, this is still all only relevant to those who believe that the Bible is both the immutable word of God and to be interpreted literally. Take either of those away and your point becomes irrelevant.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This argument is only applicable if one accepts the assumption that the baby is in fact part of the woman’s body.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Obviously only applicable if the above premise is accepted – few would forward the claim that theft will always occur, drug use, murder, rape, what have you, so we should just make everything legal but safer for everyone.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Rape/incest cases account for 2% of abortions. I will, however, still address your point.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Almost as disgusting as the notion of murdering an innocent child because of the sin against the mother – a view many people hold without blaming the victim.</p>

<p>I’m really not looking to argue. I am looking, however, to draw attention to assumptions that people make, regardless of what they believe. These assumptions are inescapable and must be addressed before the issues are.</p>

131

<p>^I used Christianity and the Bible as the dominant opposition to gay marriage because they ARE in the US. Whether religious texts of other religions condemn Homosexuality or not, the Bible is what is most commonly cited, I was therefore addressing that. Most of the time, there AREN’T non-religious arguments against Homosexuality… At least ones that aren’t completely contrived. They interpret the Bible literally one minute, then figuratively the next while claiming it’s always literal. That. Is. Hypocrisy.</p>

<p>As for abortion - You claim that there’s an assumption the baby is part of the woman’s body. I agree, because what other assumption can be made? Until the 3rd Trimester, the baby is completely dependent upon the woman’s body and cannot survive on its own. It is, therefore, part of the woman’s body. The comparison of abortion to theft, rape, and murder is really offensive, incidentally. But let’s take it to the natural conclusion of your argument. If the safeguard against a dangerous abortion is a safe abortion, then the safeguard against theft, rape and murder is… a fine or prison… rehabilitation and prison and… oh yes, life in prison. the “coat-hanger” for each of those USED to be… kill the theif, kill the rapist, and eye-for-an-eye the murderer. Their “safe abortions” equivilant already exists.</p>

132

<p>Religion didn’t invent marriage. Marriage was around (mainly economic) and religion wanted to be popular so it incorporated marriage into its structure. It remained economic. It is still economic. The whole idea that marriage is religious exists only in the minds of people who believe it by habit.</p>

133

<p>@ itachirumon- Im sorry i was off the comp. there and wasnt able to respond. but thanks to those guys who tried to cover my back. Anyway, here goes: </p>

<p>"Okay from your mentioning of Israel I’m going to focus on Iran only and ignore anything having to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Since I told you to specify which countries you had a specific issue with and that was the only one you bothered to name. While we all agree that Ahmadinejad is a dangerous nut, it’s pure hypocrisy to scream at countries about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty when we ourselves refuse to sign it (since we have several thousand nukes laying about this country of ours). Liberals just believe that with SOME dangerous nuts you need to try to solve things diplomatically instead of with a “shoot first, ask questions later” cowboy mentality. You know, try to talk with them and reach some form of agreement and then should that fail, THEN you blow their arses out of the water. " Answer: Yep, arent we conservatives all just abunch of trigger-happy cowboys?? not at all. IF you understand the circumstance you understand that negotioating or sanctions (which suprisingly you didnt mention- the educated liberals would mention that, but i wont adress why they wont and havent work b/c you didnt mention it) will simply reap no success whatsoever. The IRan situation is th emost time-sensitive of all. With every day another step closer to nukes in the hand of a REAL trigger happy maniac seeking to “wipe ISrael off the map” and the western world as well. So why waste time trying to negotiate with terrorists? i simply dont see a valid reason for that step? cause it’s nice? enlighten me. anyone who understands the situation knows “talks” (w/out preconditions) will go nowhere . And hey, look, just as conservatives predicted- the passive approach hasnt accomplished anything. And yes, we can regulate which countries cannot have nukes if they say such things as achmedinijad does and sware to wipe out countries once they get their bombs. There is a good guy and a bad guy sometimes. And btw, there is far more to the middle east confilct then IRan, and i was actually reffering to the palestinian-Israeli situation, but whatever.</p>

<p>NEXT:</p>

<p>“Lack of Racial Profiling at the airports” This is um… a good thing you know. Racial Profiling is you know… bad? We’re not supposed to be in support of that, nobody with a brain is supposed to be in support of that. “”</p>

<p>Answer: nice one. lack of racial profiling is good b/c “were not suposed to be in support of that” and “nobody with a brain is in support of that”. But i hear what your saying- to you it’s so obvious that its bad cause youre too ignorant (its not your fault, youve been sheltered) to know of what the results of it being implimented. Look at ISrael, they’re key tactic is racial profiling; they simply look at the guy and see. How efficeint is it - extremely. I can very confidently say that 9/11 and many other both failed and accomplished terrorist attacks could have been averted had we had our airport security racial profiling. Peoples’ hurt feelings vs. loss of life? belive it or not, it’s something to consider. </p>

<p>NEXT: </p>

<p>"I’m glad you mentioned the “taxing of the rich” let’s blow that one up right now. Obama isn’t increasing the taxes on the rich, he’s removing tax CUTS to the rich. Do you get it? the rich already were paying reduced taxes (ie: not their fair share) and now Obama’s ending that practice. The rich are peeved because they don’t like the percieved increase of tax. Nothing’s being “increased” in the sense that a law was passed to increase them, Obama’s just letting them return to their normal, original level prior to the Bush tax cut. "</p>

<p>Answer:</p>

<p>Yes, the bush tax cuts are being removed, in other words he’s taxing the rich. And when you say “fair share” im sure you know thats subjective. Well, actually the real FAIR share would be a percentage constant. everyone from poor to rich has to pay, say, 30% of income to taxes. BUt that fair method is actually not how it works. Ever heard of graduated income tax? ya, THAT’s how it works. real fair? nope. NO matter the tax cut, the rich were never paying below the real fair line, their percentage; always above. And you didnt get into the pragmatic ramifications of taxes on the rich so ill leave that out unless you want to mention it in ur response in which case ill adress it next time. </p>

<p>NEXt:</p>

<p>“Let’s remind ourselves of why we had the need for health care reform in the first place: because someone without insurance who would have cost the insurance company a few hundred dollars for a hospital visit for the flu, can’t afford to go. So they wait and wait and BOOM, they’re in the hospital with pneumonia, costing the STATE $10,000 a day. That’s a 100% increase, and it’s spanned out over what could be up to two weeks for the person to recover. All because they can’t afford insurance. That right there is all the reason I need to support a health care option, the alternative is wasteful.”</p>

<p>IM not sure what ur saying here. IS it that a public option would in essence SAVE the government money? cause ive heard that insane claim before, but i dont want to adress it unless thats what ur saying. PLease clarify again why ur pro-public option. </p>

<p>NEXT:</p>

<p>"Since you appear to be pro-gay marriage and pro-choice, I’m not going to bother going into those unless you correct me. However, if you are against gay marriage and are not pro-choice, please list the reasons why to save me time in asking this in a follow-up post. "</p>

<p>as every conservative, im am againt abortion. i will not get into it now though, as i am getting tired. </p>

<p>ide be glad to continue this. and if anyone else is reading this, feel free to add</p>

134

<p>@delmonico – I didn’t mention sanctions because I was using “negotiations” as a blanket term for everything from meeting with the guy to sanctions themselves. You know, I’m reminded of Carter, who famously subverted a major war between two powers with just a sit down talk. So you’re saying we should bomb him because we dont have “time” for negotiations? Well… we had plenty of time during Bush II’s administration, didn’t we? Iran famously sent Bush a letter requesting a talk in… 2003 I believe, someone else correct me if I’m wrong but it was 03/04. Bush not only ripped it up, but gravely insulted/mocked Iran for sending it. You’re saying we don’t have time, so we need to “bomb them now” but… really… how much time do you think a negotiation needs? One year? Two? I’m thinking a skilled orator such as Obama could have a peace talk in under a week. So what you’re saying is because Iran’s leader is such a dangerous nut we don’t have a week to spare to try and work something out? Btw, Negotiations and Sanctions as a foreign policy were only tried on a grand scale in WWII, against HITLER. Appeasement wouldn’t have worked on him because of the actions of the rest of the world against Germany at the Treaty of Versallies. </p>

<p>You say I’m “sheltered,” no, no no no. I’m not sheltered, I know better than to target someone as a suspected terrorist because they’re “that brown guy” that’s racist. Besides, I was referring to “racial profiling” in ALL instances, not just at airports where there’s already increased security. If an airport with at least 3 metal detectors and a pat down someone has to go through, if they’re too dumb to catch the bomb materials but somehow find them when they go over the guy a 4th time after learning his name is “Achmed” then… that reflects badly on the ability of the people working the metal detectors, and isn’t the fault of the guy with the Muslim-sounding name who doesn’t have a bomb but gets interrogated for 3 hours because some guy thinks it’s okay to racially profile “brown people.”</p>

<p>I’m saying health care reform was required to make sure everybody had insurance so that yes, it would save the government money. Economically it’s sound. You say it’s insane, tell me in what way it’s insane. $100 vs $10,000/day for a period of x days? What number is smaller, that’s the number I want to pay. The Public Option, while more expensive, ensured that MORE people would have insurance and the difference would be offset by the savings. Are you one of those people who believed in the death pannels? Please, say yes.</p>

<p>Also, @Tyler – My point exactly, THANK you.</p>

135

<p>

</p>

<p>Fine. I have no problem with that. But your last post was not the answer to the question I asked. You have still not told me why you support gay marriage. That is, assume I have no views whatsoever. Lead me to the conclusion that gay marriage is good.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No. It is not hypocrisy. Only if they assert that the Bible need universally be interpreted literally would it be hypocrisy.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Therefore, parental perpetrators of infanticide are simply choosing “what to do with their bodies” because infants are completely dependent on the bodies of their parents. Now, there is certainly a distinction – the baby is inside the womb. But the underlying thought that you are conveying does not have so thoughtful a basis as to actually distinguish between these two cases (or any case involving a human post-birth incapable of supporting himself on a biological level) in a meaningful way. One alternate assumption, of course, is that the human becomes a separate entity, another human, at some point during the pregnancy (possibly at conception). This is not so ill-founded.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>False. The analogy does not hold – the safe abortion permits the act and does not hold preventative qualities, whereas the other examples you mention do.</p>

136

<p>The best thing to do at this point is to realize that Baelor is a self-contradicting ■■■■■ who deserves no recognition on this thread. Ignore him.</p>

137

<p>^They DO assert that it be universally interpreted literally though!! I’ve had talks with many, many, many who do! Then when you call them on it, they say those parts “change with the times” while maintaining the work as a whole be interpreted literally, that’s why it’s hypocrisy!! You can NOT say part of it doesn’t hold, then ALL of it holds because the ALL contains the PART and that is a contradiction and contradiction becomes HYPOCRISY. If they said part of it doesn’t hold, but “most” does, that’s a distinction. Not very many of them make distinctions. And even if they do, WHY the distinction? WHY are polycotton blends suddenly okay while Homosexuality is still not? And who MADE the distinction? Did God appear to everyone else and suddenly say “I declare polycotton blends to be okay… homosexuality is still wicked sinful though.” Explain that logic!</p>

<p>I’m arguing from the inverse, I’m proving gay marriage is good by showing that there is no reason for it to be BAD. Really, I’m showing that the reasons people think it’s bad to be false. If it’s not bad, then that implies it’s either neutral, or good. If I can come up with a single good reason for it to be good, then it by logic, has to be good. It confers MORE benefits on these couples than they would otherwise get. It let’s them have the word “marriage” which carries a stronger social connotation to it than “domestic partnership” I’d sure rather have my relationship be called “marriage” than “domestic partnership” wouldn’t you? It carries more weight. These relationships are fundamentally NO different from straight marriages, so every benefit you can picture that straight marriages can be good for, can also apply to gay marriage. Since there’s no “it’s bad because” there’s no detraction, and no difference. </p>

<p>Your analogy of abortion being similar to rape, murder and theft is false too, you assume that each of these actions is one person depriving another person and this technically true but it suggests that the mother is as bad as the rapist, thief or murderer. She’s not. Especially in rape/incest cases. You’re just trading a focus on the mother for a focus on the unborn child. Either it’s no more valid, or just as.</p>

138

<p>

</p>

<p>Agreed. But that does not mean that all persons who believe in literal interpretation of some parts but not of others are hypocrites.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>No, you aren’t. I would claim that you were setting up straw men if you were more dishonest – but that isn’t the case. There are many, many ways to reach the conclusion that homosexual marriage is bad. It would be far easier for you to assert the correctness of gay marriage instead, as it is impossible to rationally eliminate every possibility in existence, some of which neither of us is even able to identify.</p>

<p>Your following statements are in general true, but the following statement:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>is obviously not true.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Accept the premise that the baby is fully human for the sake of this line of reasoning. By killing the child, you are actively committing murder. By not killing the child, you are obviously not actively committing murder. Do you see how those situations are different?</p>

139

<p>calibabe - your butthurt is showing.</p>

140

<p>Vanagana or whatever, my butt feels fine. I’m merely stating the truth: Baelor, and possibly you, deserve absolutely no acknowledgement on this thread and people should just ignore you. Arguing with a ■■■■■ is pointless because they present no valuable evidence and constantly contradict themselves… So go away so the big kids can have a real conversation… Please?</p>