Charleston shooting

[Gravekeeper]

Stick those white kids in a room full of black people and see uncomfortable they suddenly become even though they have no reason to believe they are bad people. Interchange any of the races. Being different makes people nervous and uneasy.

Actually, no, it doesn't. Racial bias in children is intimately tied to how their parents treat race and how multiracial or monoracial their enviroment is. Children don't innately fear different people. They're actually keenly aware of differences in people and curious about them. Its the parents that cause the problems.

Ironically, if a parent does *not* talk to their children about race, their child will actually develop racial bias. Even if its subconscious. If a parent makes a huge deal about it if the child says something innocent but possibly offensive ( like asking why someone has darker skin ) it will likewise cause a child to develop racial bias. Because the child notices that someone having darker skin seems to be a huge deal to their parents and thus figures it must be a huge deal in life.

The stupidest part about it is that white parents in America are much more likely to take either approach ( trying to ignore race or making a big deal out of it if the child says something racial ) instead of talking about race to their children. While non-white parents are the opposite.

Even putting that aside. "If we can't fix 100% of the problem why fix any of it?" is a poor strategy for handling any issue.

You can't have a conservative belief with being accused of being a Fox News kool aid drinker.

If you're going to repeat an argument straight from a Fox & Friends show then yes. However, I don't see anywhere in this thread where you were accused of such. Nor anywhere that you were accused of being intolerant or backhanded.

[Estil]

Just look at this thread. Our opinions aren't thoughtfully discussed. They are called backhanded, told we are too sensitive, biased arses, intolerant, ridiculous. And I see it all the time in threads where I disagree with the crowd. You can't have a conservative belief with being accused of being a Fox News kool aid drinker.

You are absolutely right and I thought it was against the rules around here to personally insult any individual forum member on here? And some of the past few posts I've tried to make here at Fratching was simply trying to pointing out that blatant double standard both here and elsewhere.

[Gravekeeper]

You are absolutely right and I thought it was against the rules around here to personally insult any individual forum member on here? And some of the past few posts I've tried to make here at Fratching was simply trying to pointing out that blatant double standard both here and elsewhere.

Look, both Andara and I have already pointed out the problem with the way you present your arguments. When you present your viewpoint you can't seem to help yourself from including some backhanded remark against "liberals". You can't continually insult a group as a whole then claim to be a victim when you face an individual backlash. That's not a "blatant double standard".

If you're going to present your viewpoints in an antagonistic manner you can't be surprised when you succeed in antagonizing people. Especially if half of what you're saying is demonstrably false.

[Estil]

You mean like you can't help yourself with these backhanded remarks?

* Estil seems to be around to basically convey why no one should take Fox News seriously. >.>

* If you're going to repeat an argument straight from a Fox & Friends show then yes.

* This is a debate and discussion site, not a guest panel on Sean Hannity.

* You can occupy a different viewpoint without being a biased arse about it and just repeating whatever shit Fox News tells you....But all you've done so far is repeat the same sort of shit I see the bobble heads on America TV yammer about

* (from another thread) What's your next "libtard" sound byte we can look at? -.-

* (this one wasn't from you but it's still a good example) ...but if it doesn't fit your right-wing political agenda...


And this is just from this thread alone. Those don't count as "backhanded remarks"? If nothing else what makes you and others so certain I have a "right wing political agenda" (exactly how do you draw that conclusion when so far I've only mentioned a few of my beliefs on the issues) and where did I even mention what I watch on TV in anyway (your assumption that I get my info from "bobble talking heads on TV" is just that, an assumption; the truth of the matter is I don't hardly watch TV in the traditional sense at all (other than UK basketball season)...I usually prefer the Internet/Netflix/DVDs/YouTube and so on)?

What I mean by "blatant double standard" is that what you are calling "backhanded remarks" seem to be perfectly alright so long as it's against certain groups/people and not others. And what is up lately with all this Texas bashing (just as yet another example) I'm seeing here at Fratching lately?

Lastly, you've certainly made very clear what you think I'm doing wrong. How about showing me some examples of "conservative viewpoints", in your opinion, of being done right?

[Gravekeeper]

You mean like you can't help yourself with these backhanded remarks?

You mean the ones that were a direct response to yours? Like I said, you can't be antagonistic than act surprised when you succeed.

I mentioned Fox News because you've been rehashing tired arguments and behaviours typically seen on sources like Fox News. ( Which has done more damage to the term "conservative" in the US than anything the left ever has ).

Lastly, you've certainly made very clear what you think I'm doing wrong. How about showing me some examples of "conservative viewpoints", in your opinion, of being done right?

Try one that isn't demonstrably false, a false equivalency or has some weird tinge of a persecution complex to it. You can state your viewpoint without having to attack what you view as the opposing team in the same breath.

Though I will freely tell you up front that social conservative beliefs are unlikely to fly on this site as they are by and large damaging to society and human equality. Fiscally or politically conservative, sure. But this is the problem with the term "conservative" in the US. It shifts to whatever is politically expedient for politicians and talking head farms like Fox News follow suit.

Currently, its being largely defined by social conservatism as a wedge issue and a hypocritical view on freedom and personal liberty with a dash of unsettling racism. Which is unfortunate, really. As those are all, ultimately, losing sides in the progress of modern society. I don't see much of fiscal or political conservatism coming out of the Republican side of things. Those seem to be taken on by the Libertarians now. But on the national stage Libertarians are, like everyone else not GOP or Dem, seen as a fringe group.

Also, not everyone on this site is American. I'm not. So the liberal vs conservative sports team thing going on down there doesn't apply to me or others here not from the US. Liberal and Conservative in the US are quite different then they are elsewhere. We're just watching US politics in a mix of horror and fascination -.-

[Estil]

Well there are some "socially conservative" beliefs I personally don't agree with. I already mentioned I don't have a problem with LGBT's (I have an especially special respect for PLAGAL, which is the main pro-life group of LGBT's and YES you better believe I'm all for LGBT adoption if that means more children go to good loving homes), I am very much an "organized religion skeptic" in terms of religion (you can still do religious after school clubs, pray/say grace before your lunch, we can still say "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and so on so I really don't get this whole "they took God out of schools!!!" thing), and I'm also anti-capital punishment (though not exactly on moral grounds, more in terms of "if it can't be done right it shouldn't be done at all"). So remember how I said I'm not comfortable in a "hive mind" setting? I honestly am not sure if I'd be all that welcome among Republican (or even pro-life) ranks. Yes we certainly got our own share of Looney Tunes among the R's (both in terms of leaders and activists and such) as well as the D's, but I have no control over nor am I in any way responsible for them. I am not a "typical man" (which I sometimes have to remind my wife), "typical American", "typical pro-lifer", "typical Republican and/or conservative" or a typical anything. I am an individual just like anyone else, I can only say what I personally think.

And YES I am fully aware this site and CS is "not all American" (I hope you weren't again making a sweeping assumption that I was one of those "no world outside our borders" types). In fact isn't that the whole idea of the Internet in general where people from all over the world can converse pretty much in real time? As for the "liberal vs conservative" sports team thing, don't other countries also have a two party system (IIRC the Labour and Conservative parties in Canada and UK are somewhat similar to our D's and R's respectively)? Or at the very least you must form a coalition of say, the major "left of center" or "right of center" party along with some other minor parties in order to get a majority (which just like how in our Electoral College for President it's not enough to have the most votes you must get a majority; over half) and thus control of gov't? Frankly I'm quite surprised that other countries care as much about US politics as they do; I would think they would focus most on their own issues/concerns in their country.

And once again (especially when I first tried Fratching in 2010) I was probably a bit naive in expecting there'd at least be a few other fellow pro-lifers or conservatives or whatnot here.

[Gravekeeper]

And YES I am fully aware this site and CS is "not all American" (I hope you weren't again making a sweeping assumption that I was one of those "no world outside our borders" types).

No, I was not, otherwise I would have said as such.

As for the "liberal vs conservative" sports team thing, don't other countries also have a two party system (IIRC the Labour and Conservative parties in Canada and UK are somewhat similar to our D's and R's respectively)?

No, Canada and the UK are parliamentary systems and use proportional representation instead of first across the line takes all like the US system. Canada for example basically has 3 major parties and 2 minor ones right now in our equivalent of congress. As well as a couple of sitting independents.

Our system allows for a minority government so to speak.

Frankly I'm quite surprised that other countries care as much about US politics as they do; I would think they would focus most on their own issues/concerns in their country.

We care because they affect us and you can fuck us all over. Something you threaten to do with alarming regularly lately. Remember that whole financial crisis thing? Or the debt ceiling shit? -.-

And once again (especially when I first tried Fratching in 2010) I was probably a bit naive in expecting there'd at least be a few other fellow pro-lifers or conservatives or whatnot here.

I think things are a bit more nuanced here than liberal vs conservative. Hence we keep coming back to the political compass thing periodically. Yes, Greenday skews right on some issues, but left on others for example. I don't think there's anyone here, in either camp, that completely tows a party line so to speak.

Pro-life is a very difficult position to defend for a wide variety of reasons ( we're back to that whole damaging to society and humanity equality as a whole problem ). I'm not sure how many pro-lifers are here. Not many I would surmise. Unless you mean pro-life as in you personally don't believe in abortion instead of Pro-life(tm) in that you want to deny access to everyone else because of your personal beliefs.

[s_stabeler]

actually, the UK uses first-past-the-post to vote for our MPs.

As for Conservatives and Labour being equivalent to your Democrats and Republicans, not really. First of all, they BOTH tend to be right-of-center these days, and drifting further right. ( which, being left-of-center myself, tends to irritate me.)

But seriously, Estil, if you want to be accepted here, it's probably best to argue a topic on the strength of the arguments- not on the basis of who is arguing it. ( the unfortunate fact is that your opinions sounded like you were quoting Fox News- which isn't really considered much of a news source around here)

Oh, and don't be discouraged if people don't agree with you- this being a debate site, it's quite rare that we do get unanimous agreement on a topic, and some of the arguments can be legendary. ( if you want to start a massive argument that can span 20 pages, then bring up guns. The arguments can be pretty epic.)

[Greenday]

this being a debate site

It's not debate when every conservative argument is thrown out the window because it's a Fox News talking point or such. Every conservative view point is a Fox News talking point. If we could toss out every liberal viewpoint presented here as CNN talking points, there'd be nothing to talk about.

[the_std]

GK already addressed this - it's socially conservative views that tend to be tossed out around here, not all conservative views. That's because the vast majority of socially conservative views do way more harm than good, and are almost always on the losing side of public perception as society grows and evolves. That's because most socially conservative views are designed to restrict the liberty of, or in some cases outright persecute, a section of people. They're hard to logically defend, and most of the people on this board tend to skew towards giving rights and freedoms to more people, not fewer.

[Estil]

Pro-life is a very difficult position to defend for a wide variety of reasons ( we're back to that whole damaging to society and humanity equality as a whole problem ). I'm not sure how many pro-lifers are here. Not many I would surmise. Unless you mean pro-life as in you personally don't believe in abortion instead of Pro-life(tm) in that you want to deny access to everyone else because of your personal beliefs.

Well one of the main things I differ from is those on the religious side of it (I tend to see it more as a civil rights issue...that just as history showed that we were wrong to deny basic human rights to black people and now LGBT's, so too (eventually) towards unborn children, especially in light of advances like ultrasound (especially that newer 3D kind) and fetal surgery and so on that have occurred since Roe) who think condoms, the "pill", and LGBT adoptions are no good. I believe in using ALL available tools to avoid unplanned pregnancies. After all you can't abort what doesn't get conceived in the first place. Abstinence is the equivalent of paying your credit card bill in full every month. Yes, it's indeed the only sure 100% fire way of not getting pregnant/AIDS/etc or getting charged interest (respectively) and is the most ideal way to go (shoot I think even boxes of Trojan condoms of all things said right on the package "abstinence before marriage and a monogamous relationship during marriage" is the best way to go)...but like most things in life things don't always work ideally ya know?

And contrary to popular belief overturning Roe v Wade won't make abortion illegal at all...it would simply go back to the states and the people (which would fit perfectly under the 10th Amendment)...and you know what? You don't even necessarily have to make it illegal (remember pro-lifers believe that abortion is killing an unborn child so you can't exactly fault them for not being comfortable with the idea of the law endorsing abortion). Those states who are okay with abortion...nothing will change. Those states/smaller places that'd rather not have anything to do with it can simply choose not to license any abortionists/abortion facilities. There ya go, sounds pretty "pro-choice" to me!

[NecCat]

Pro-life is a very difficult position to defend for a wide variety of reasons ( we're back to that whole damaging to society and humanity equality as a whole problem ).

I would have to disagree with that, it is a very easy position to defend, with science and facts to back up the theories. I tend to lean very left politically and socially, with a strong belief in granting basic human rights to everyone, that's why I am pro-life.

[Gravekeeper]

Those states who are okay with abortion...nothing will change. Those states/smaller places that'd rather not have anything to do with it can simply choose not to license any abortionists/abortion facilities. There ya go, sounds pretty "pro-choice" to me!

Except it doesn't work that way and that's not what pro-choice means. Thats giving the "choice" to the states, not the individual. And even putting that aside, not everyone could afford to travel across state lines to find a state with legal abortion. Many can't even afford to get to the handful of operating clinics in States with TARP laws as is.

I would have to disagree with that, it is a very easy position to defend, with science and facts to back up the theories. I tend to lean very left politically and socially, with a strong belief in granting basic human rights to everyone, that's why I am pro-life.

Facts don't back up pro-life though.

There is a direct correlation between reproductive rights and women's prosperity. Full stop. Denying women access to abortion does not stop or prevent abortion in any way shape or form. All it does is drive it underground making it unsafe and life threatening.

And that's also the kicker. In order to grant what you perceive as a "basic human right" you must simultaneously deny someone their basic human rights over their own body. Its a contradictory position.

If you don't like abortion, don't have one, but leave everyone else alone. Its none of your business what someone else does with their uterus.

( if you want to start a massive argument that can span 20 pages, then bring up guns. The arguments can be pretty epic.)

Oh lawd, please don't. >.>

[Estil]

I would have to disagree with that, it is a very easy position to defend, with science and facts to back up the theories. I tend to lean very left politically and socially, with a strong belief in granting basic human rights to everyone, that's why I am pro-life.

I don't know if they're still around but there was a group called "LeftOut" which was a liberal/progressive pro-life organization. I bet you probably would've liked it.

But yes you hit the nail right on the head. How can I see all those ultrasounds, all those books showing how the unborn child progresses in the womb...I can't look at that and say "abortion is not killing anything and thus is nothing more than an act of choice".

It's kinda interesting how the pro-life movement is the only movement I know of that actually wants to be wrong. I mean their core belief is that the unborn child is an individual person (they do have unique DNA and such right at conception) and thus abortion is the act of killing a human life (and doing so for only elective reasons and doing so when the baby can feel pain (the way abortions are done is not a pretty sight; let's just say they're not just painlessly put down like an old dog or death row inmate) is especially not acceptable). Shoot if you could show me that abortion is not killing anything I would have no reason to object to it. And it wouldn't be none of that "safe, legal, rare" crap either. If abortion is that safe and is truly not killing anything, there's no reason for it to be "rare". And there'd be nothing wrong with be "pro-abortion" either.

[Greenday]

there's no reason for it to be "rare".

Not to start the abortion debate, but this one is super simple. They are rare because there are cheaper, less invasive options available to prevent pregnancies.