My Problems With My Country

[j2k4]

This, I feel, states rather succinctly what is wrong with my country. It is a column by one of my favorite columnists, Michelle Malkin.

Starvation nation
Michelle Malkin

November 5, 2003

In a country where pet obesity and soda-guzzling toddlers are the health problems du jour, it might seem hard to believe that starvation in America poses a far bigger threat than overindulgence.


But a deeper look at the daily headlines suggests exactly that. The famine at hand is not about the absence of physical and material nourishment. We are a nation that has been weaned off the sustaining principle that all human life is sacred. We are a nation addicted to the sugar water of relativism -- a sweet-tasting, empty-calorie diet that is at the root of a deadly moral decay.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a wide-awake cognitively disabled Florida woman whom the life-denying mainstream media ghouls keep describing as "comatose," came perilously close to starving to death at the hands of her husband and the courts last month. Michael Schiavo, who vowed to love his ailing wife in sickness and in health, ordered Terri's feeding tube removed and denied her Holy Communion. After Gov. Jeb Bush and the state Legislature intervened and the tube was reconnected, Schiavo again blocked Terri from receiving sustenance -- the emotional sustenance of her loving and vigilant parents.

Meanwhile, Schiavo has satisfied his own base appetites by taking up with a mistress, fathering two illegitimate children, and squandering a massive medical malpractice payment on "right-to-die" lawyers and living expenses instead of rehabilitative therapy for Terri.

Another reminder of inhumane neglect last week came in the emaciated faces of Bruce, Keith, Tyrone, and Michael Jackson of Collingswood, N.J. Bruce, 19 years old and 45 pounds, was caught rummaging through a neighbor's garbage for food. At home, Bruce and his younger brothers had apparently been starved for the past five years by adoptive parents who cashed in on the state-subsidized kiddie racket.

Raymond and Vanessa Jackson reportedly received more than $30,000 from the state of New Jersey last year to help care for their adopted children and raked in federal housing subsidies to cover their rent. Yet, the Jacksons owed about $9,000 in back rent and accepted at least $2,000 from a church to restore their electricity. Where did all the aid go?

The Jacksons and their biological children appear perfectly well-fed in family portraits. Indeed, some of the healthy siblings could stand to lose a few pounds. A friend of the family noted that the Jackson family living room boasted a large screen TV with cable hook-up. And there was enough money to set up an alarm system in the kitchen, presumably to keep the starving boys out. Meanwhile, Bruce and his brothers apparently gnawed on window sills and insulation to fight hunger. Their teeth had rotted; their shrunken heads crawled with lice. Friends and relatives rationalized the boys' barbaric treatment with the circular claim that they had eating disorders.

Every week, the victims surface: A 2-year-old Jacksonville, Fla., toddler survives on ketchup and raw pasta for two weeks while her mom sits silently behind bars. A brother and sister are left home alone with a few boxes of Bagel Bites and corn dogs for three weeks while their mom pursues a North Carolina man she met on the Internet. A brain-injured man starves to death in a Manassas, Va., nursing home after his wife has his feeding tube yanked and then collects more than $800,000 in tax-free insurance funds.

Earlier this year, the decomposing body of 7-year-old Faheem Williams was found stuffed in a plastic container in a Newark basement. He had died of starvation and blunt force trauma to his distended stomach. His brothers, a twin and a 4-year-old suffering from malnutrition and dehydration, were found locked in a room nearby covered with vomit and feces. Government social workers had visited the children dozens of times to investigate allegations of burns, beatings, drug trafficking and lack of food. But they failed to take any action other than feeding the Nanny State bureaucracy with useless paperwork.

To treat human beings as vegetables, cash cows, disposable goods and anonymous case files is to cruelly rob them of fundamental respect and dignity. We may be a nation of plenty, but without the nourishment that only the Bread of Life can bring, we are slowly wasting away.

[protak]

Good article j2k4, sad and ufortunately true. :(

[3RA1N1AC]

america: love it or leave it. ;)

[ilw]

Originally posted by j2k4@18 November 2003 - 04:24
Terri Schindler-Schiavo, a wide-awake cognitively disabled Florida woman whom the life-denying mainstream media ghouls keep describing as "comatose," came perilously close to starving to death at the hands of her husband and the courts last month. Michael Schiavo, who vowed to love his ailing wife in sickness and in health, ordered Terri's feeding tube removed and denied her Holy Communion. After Gov. Jeb Bush and the state Legislature intervened and the tube was reconnected, Schiavo again blocked Terri from receiving sustenance -- the emotional sustenance of her loving and vigilant parents.

Meanwhile, Schiavo has satisfied his own base appetites by taking up with a mistress, fathering two illegitimate children, and squandering a massive medical malpractice payment on "right-to-die" lawyers and living expenses instead of rehabilitative therapy for Terri.

While the other comments in this article are clear cases of neglect which regrettably are seen the world over, the case of the woman in a persistently vegetative state isn't clear cut. While the husband may or may not be a twat, I think its been proven in court that her wishes before the brain damage was that she die if she were ever in this situation. My personal opinion is she should be allowed to die, I would want to die if my conscious brain activity was zero. Just because her eyes are open and she can move (with no purpose to her movements) doesn't really make it any better than comatose, in fact since comatose sometimes means that you could wake up with your faculties relatively intact, a persistent vegetative state is in some ways a worse situation, though of course on first impressions you wouldn't agree.
If someone makes a clear and reasoned choice to die if certain criteria are fulfilled what right does anyone have to force them to stay alive? Imo the ghouls are the parents keeping a shell of a body alive for their own religious beliefs.
How is spending money on lawyers squandering?

[MagicNakor]

I saw two of those cases on the news.

Terri Schindler-Schiavo did have some statement about not wanting to be kept alive if she became a vegetable. And from what was shown on the spot, she indeed has.

The boys resembled people in a concentration camp. Their foster family certainly could stand to skip a few meals.

As ilw said, the latter isn't really anything new. There've been cases here of people starving, or eating dried mustard, or buying dog food for themselves. For some reason we seem to keep getting cases of people dead for months (or years...) and it wasn't noticed. I think that's more due to remoteness though. It's not uncommon for me not to see anyone else (not living in my place) for a fortnight or so.

I fall on the side of the husband with the former case though. He's likely not as bad as that article made him out to be. She's been vegetative for thirteen years. The feeding tube was first removed 2001. I would say that after eleven years, maybe it's just time to let go.

:ninja:

Edit: typo.

[ang3968]

j2k4

it's not only in America, there have been plenty of cases in the Australian news over the years showing terrible neglect on children and even adults.

It's sad that the system doesn't always work for some of the kids but even sadder that as a society we miss the signs that could bring them help.

[dwightfry]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@18 November 2003 - 00:56
america: love it or leave it. ;)
Canada, here I come.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@18 November 2003 - 02:56
america: love it or leave it. ;)
I'm not sure I understand the sentiment or intent behind this remark, 3RA1N1AC. :huh:

[internet.news]

hmm... interesting... thks for posting... ;)

[Rat Faced]

Neither do I.

Such cases appear to be happening more frequently in the UK too :(

[j2k4]

An examination of the reasons for this crumbling social firmament leads to places no one wants to go.

Religion, morals, principles-

We cannot agree on their definition, origin, or necessity.

How very sad that any reasonable discourse is short-circuited before it can even get underway. :(

[billyfridge]

I think that people who perpetrate these crimes have no respect or fear of the law.
this is because corporal punishment has been done away with. the threat of a public flogging or the act of one, would deter 90% of them.
as a youth in the 1950's we all respected policemen, i've had my earhole clipped a few times for being a little arshole, did me more good than harm. but i see these teenage arseholes swaggering up to policemen and taunting them because they know they can't be touched, makes my blood boil. my children tell me they are afraid of police in Spain, because if they step out of line they get battered.
like dwightfry said Spain here i come. :angry:

Disillusioned Brit.

[vegasguy]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@18 November 2003 - 06:56
america: love it or leave it. ;)
Hi,

I agree!

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4+18 November 2003 - 07:49--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 18 November 2003 - 07:49)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@18 November 2003 - 02:56
america: love it or leave it.&nbsp; ;)
I&#39;m not sure I understand the sentiment or intent behind this remark, 3RA1N1AC. :huh: [/b][/quote]
just abusing an old slogan. or corrupting it, so to speak.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+18 November 2003 - 20:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 18 November 2003 - 20:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@18 November 2003 - 07:49
<!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@18 November 2003 - 02:56
america: love it or leave it. ;)
I&#39;m not sure I understand the sentiment or intent behind this remark, 3RA1N1AC. :huh:
just abusing an old slogan. or corrupting it, so to speak. [/b][/quote]
Ah. ;)

[kAb]

this is disturbing. many of those children are miracles, while others obviously not so lucky :(

but remember, if you make over &#036;20,000 a year, you are the top, what 3% richest people in the world?

when you think these kinds of things happen in other parts of the world, you find out they&#39;re happening right at home, the sad thing is, being in the u.s., we have the money to prevent these kinds of things from happening, even if the parents don&#39;t.

[Alex H]

I really is amazing (and terrible) that while we live though the most prosperous period humanity has ever had, that people can be allowed to live in such terrible conditions. A lot people simply accept that this happens in "human resource rich" countries, and mercifuly many of them try to do something about it, like sponsoring a child.

Unfortunatly many western goverments seem to be loosing the plot in terms of domestic issuses of poverty. Why arn&#39;t foster parents examined more closely, and further, why does it take months or even years to discover the abuses? I think many western governments, especially my own Australian government needs to be looking at much better background checks, more regular visits, case workers being alowed to speak to children away from foster parents, etc.

And on the right to die (or live), I think that HAS to be up to the individual. I think the sancity of life only exists if it can be experienced - what is the point of having a great gift if you cannot enjoy it.

And I would also urge people to think about what they would like to happen if they ended up in a vegitative state. Personally I wouldn&#39;t want the hospital&#39;s resources to wasted on me, so I&#39;d want someone to pull the plug.

AND MAKE SURE YOU TELL YOUR FAMILY AND LOVED ONES WHAT YOU WANT&#33;&#33;&#33;
You many not be able to donate your organs, etc if you havn&#39;t and they question your wishes. A guy who died here in Australia was able to save 17 other people by donating his organs, so remember - RECYCLE - you ain&#39;t gunna need &#39;em anymore. :D

[3RA1N1AC]

i think the terri schiavo controversy makes a great case for the concept of the "living will." it prolly won&#39;t change the minds of religious fundamentalists who deny any difference between life and life-support, but at least it&#39;d make the patient&#39;s opinion crystal clear and keep the government from having to arbirtarily decide whether life-support truly is life or merely a simulation of life.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@19 November 2003 - 02:48
i think the terri schiavo controversy makes a great case for the concept of the "living will." it prolly won&#39;t change the minds of religious fundamentalists who deny any difference between life and life-support, but at least it&#39;d make the patient&#39;s opinion crystal clear and keep the government from having to arbirtarily decide whether life-support truly is life or merely a simulation of life.
Gooooooood point&#33;&#33; ;)

Leaving no room for error is an oft-ignored but effective tactic.

[Yogi]

2/3 of baby&#39;s in the states between 18-24 month have french fries as their main vegetable food.

Source:Volkskrant-Dutch Newspaper

Yogi

[ilw]

While a living will has obvious advantages, in the Schiavo case, I believe a judge has ruled that it was her wish to die in these circumstances which surely carries the same sort of legal weight as a living will. Was the overruling decision to keep her alive governor anything but a vote getter?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@19 November 2003 - 06:46
While a living will has obvious advantages, in the Schiavo case, I believe a judge has ruled that it was her wish to die in these circumstances which surely carries the same sort of legal weight as a living will. Was the overruling decision to keep her alive governor&nbsp; anything but a vote getter?

ilw-

If it were to be viewed as a "vote-getter", one would have to be relatively sure such an action as Jeb Bush took would result in more votes-given the current attitudes toward euthanasia/assisted suicide, I wouldn&#39;t assume this to be true.

Apparently (and this is not clear), some doubt has been cast on the idea she wished to die in this circumstance.

Her parents, as you know, have weighed in on the side of keeping her alive; they are the ones who claim she&#39;s capable of communicating, etc., and seem to be possessed of the idea the husband wants her "out of the way".

It&#39;s a bit of a mess, that way.

[Alex H]

Originally posted by j2k4@19 November 2003 - 14:37
If it were to be viewed as a "vote-getter", one would have to be relatively sure such an action as Jeb Bush took would result in more votes-given the current attitudes toward euthanasia/assisted suicide, I wouldn&#39;t assume this to be true.

Out of curiosity, what are the current feelings of euthanasia/assisted suicide in the US? I know that a lot of US polititions make a big fuss about supporting right to life groups, but what is the general opinion, man-on-the-street type thing?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Alex H+19 November 2003 - 23:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Alex H &#064; 19 November 2003 - 23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@19 November 2003 - 14:37
If it were to be viewed as a "vote-getter", one would have to be relatively sure such an action as Jeb Bush took would result in more votes-given the current attitudes toward euthanasia/assisted suicide, I wouldn&#39;t assume this to be true.

Out of curiosity, what are the current feelings of euthanasia/assisted suicide in the US? I know that a lot of US polititions make a big fuss about supporting right to life groups, but what is the general opinion, man-on-the-street type thing?[/b][/quote]
The pols who are "right to life" on both ends of the age spectrum don&#39;t generally make a big deal out of it, it&#39;s the others who are more vocal.

I think the trend is toward availability of assisted suicide, and living wills, etc., basically planning ahead.

Euthanasia is (deservedly, I feel) viewed as the bastard son of end-of-life options; the key for everyone seems to be whether the opinion/wish of the person in question can be somehow ascertained in advance, and if a choice needs to be made at some point, a mechanism is in place to reflect it.

I find it ironic that, while amongst us conservatives a range of opinions exist, American liberals, pretty much straight down the line, are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-assisted suicide, but anti-death-penalty.

I&#39;ve never found one who can explain that; they don&#39;t seem to recognize any inconsistency in this thinking. :huh:

[Arm]

I thought that article was going to be good until they started menctioning the Florida woman. Arm stopped reading after that.
The woman is fucking dead&#33; :angry: Her brains dead and is in a permanent coma. She will never wake up and it does her no good to prolong her being alive.

Americas does not value life but in another way. Arm aint talking about abortion either.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Arm@20 November 2003 - 02:28
I thought that article was going to be good until they started menctioning the Florida woman. Arm stopped reading after that.
The woman is fucking dead&#33; :angry: Her brains dead and is in a permanent coma. She will never wake up and it does her no good to prolong her being alive.

Americas does not value life but in another way. Arm aint talking about abortion either.
If you continue in the third person, I&#39;ll defer to the first two, who are (thankfully) silent. ;)

[protak]

If you continue in the third person, I&#39;ll defer to the first two, who are (thankfully) silent.&nbsp;
Can you explain this to me (left field), either pm or board. Your choice.. :huh:

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@19 November 2003 - 22:16
I find it ironic that, while amongst us conservatives a range of opinions exist, American liberals, pretty much straight down the line, are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-assisted suicide
and i find it ironic that fiscal conservatives aren&#39;t out in the street protesting against the hog-wild spending spree that our president is on, and that a predominantly christian country seems completely unfamiliar with the idea of turning the other cheek (as relates to both the death penalty and to inventing excuses for starting wars ).

irony isn&#39;t that difficult to find in most things, if you look at them with an ironic tilt.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by Arm@20 November 2003 - 07:28
...Arm aint talking about abortion either.
;)

Third person.

:ninja:

[ilw]

Originally posted by j2k4@20 November 2003 - 06:16
I find it ironic that, while amongst us conservatives a range of opinions exist, American liberals, pretty much straight down the line, are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-assisted suicide, but anti-death-penalty.

I&#39;ve never found one who can explain that; they don&#39;t seem to recognize any inconsistency in this thinking. :huh:
I think most of it can be summed up as no one should be allowed to take someone elses life without their consent and that people who are brain dead are already dead. Throw in some science to explain that foetuses are basically brain dead and have no rights and i think that covers pretty much everything. Imo conservatism is about the stagnation and consolidation of our current civilsation and its values, and liberalism is about the advancement towards the goal of a more civilised society and part of the process of advancement seems to be taking a scientific approach to looking at life. Is there anyone who thinks having the death penalty is more civilsed than not having it? The only one in the list you gave that doesn&#39;t seem civilised is abortion, but with a slight copout by saying the baby is not alive yet, everything is fine and dandy, maybe when the technology exists to save and support all those foetuses....

Just curious, but do you think people have the right to commit suicide and does anyone have the right to damage themselves?

[MagicNakor]

I support the death penalty. It&#39;s not very civilized to kidnap prostitutes and then grind their bodies up. And seeing as this fellow in particular had done it for well over ten years...I don&#39;t think it&#39;s very likely he&#39;ll be "rehabilitated."

:ninja:

[dwightfry]

I think people should have the right to do what they see as best for themselves as long as it doesn&#39;t physically hurt any one else.


I don&#39;t think anyone has the right to stop you because they feel that you living is the most important thing. Nobody knows exactly what is going on except for the person living it. I don&#39;t think many people really realize what it is going to do to people who love them, but if they do and they still feel it&#39;s not worth it, then that&#39;s there choice.

[ilw]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@20 November 2003 - 10:39
I support the death penalty. It&#39;s not very civilized to kidnap prostitutes and then grind their bodies up. And seeing as this fellow in particular had done it for well over ten years...I don&#39;t think it&#39;s very likely he&#39;ll be "rehabilitated."

:ninja:
if the death penalty stopped people from doing this I&#39;d be willing to accept it, but the death penalty doesn&#39;t seem to do much in terms of preventing crime, imo it just fulfills the bloodthirsty instincts for retribution that victims and onlookers experience. The countries that have abolished the death penalty seem to be doing just fine, so again imo its something barbaric that you could do just fine without.
I agree that with the system as it is now some people won&#39;t be rehabilitated, but if they can be safely locked up for the rest of their lives, why not do that instead of killing them?

[AussieSheila]

:huh: I agree with ilw there :o The father of one of the Bali bombing victims put it well, he is a judge btw, re the death penalty for the bombers "Not in my sons name thanks." I think if someone hurt one of my kids my first reaction would be to want to tear them apart, but then I think as time went by I hope I would feel the same way. I wouldn&#39;t want something like that added to the memory of my child.

I also think it&#39;s letting criminals off easily to put them to death. I would rather they had a long, long time to think about things.

[MagicNakor]

I had evidence to the contrary, that it actually does work as a deterrent. But some of my research into various things has been lost, so I don&#39;t have any quotes.

I don&#39;t believe that I should have to pay to house, clothe, and feed serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, and so on. They aren&#39;t locked up for any significant amount of time anyway. And it costs a fortune to do so.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

I&#39;m gonna have to post more than once here to answer all these, so here&#39;s what&#39;s first.

ilw-

Say what you want, the death penalty sure deters those who would murder again.

Think for a minute about the difficulty of gathering a statistic which would inform you definitively how many people do not commit murder precisely because there is a death penalty.

Also, no amount of science in the world can make a fetus "brain-dead".

I will, if I can find the correct reference, define for you what I don&#39;t like about Liberalism; I have a passage somewhere that does it better than I could.

Conservatism is, as usual, not very well-understood here.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+20 November 2003 - 03:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 20 November 2003 - 03:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@19 November 2003 - 22:16
I find it ironic that, while amongst us conservatives a range of opinions exist, American liberals, pretty much straight down the line, are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-assisted suicide
and i find it ironic that fiscal conservatives aren&#39;t out in the street protesting against the hog-wild spending spree that our president is on, and that a predominantly christian country seems completely unfamiliar with the idea of turning the other cheek (as relates to both the death penalty and to inventing excuses for starting wars ).

irony isn&#39;t that difficult to find in most things, if you look at them with an ironic tilt.[/b][/quote]
3RA1N1AC-

This conservative would protest rather strongly the propensity for spending demonstrated by the Bush administration. ;)

Bush, however, does not get to my neck of the woods, nor is he likely to (so that I might protest for his edification). :(

Another drawback is that I have a job which I must attend; most protesters must be unemployed-I don&#39;t see how they manage it, otherwise. :huh:

[ilw]

Originally posted by MagicNakor@20 November 2003 - 12:58
I had evidence to the contrary, that it actually does work as a deterrent. But some of my research into various things has been lost, so I don&#39;t have any quotes.

I don&#39;t believe that I should have to pay to house, clothe, and feed serial killers, rapists, paedophiles, and so on. They aren&#39;t locked up for any significant amount of time anyway. And it costs a fortune to do so.

:ninja:
yeah it comes down to your hard earned tax dollars, I&#39;m sure we could all save &#036;15 a month by killing off some of those spongers.

You may think these people are not fit to share your society, but you&#39;d kill them to save money? I&#39;m just curious, but i notice you mentioned rapists and paedophiles, would they all get the death penalty as well?


Think for a minute about the difficulty of gathering a statistic which would inform you definitively how many people do not commit murder precisely because there is a death penalty.
Well i&#39;m saying instead of death penalty lock them up for their life, where they are unable to commit murder (i&#39;m assuming a perfect jail.....). As for statistics, well they&#39;ve been produced some showing differences some no difference etc, but I think the most telling thing is that people in Europe seem to survive just fine, society hasn&#39;t crumbled yet.
How many lives of innocents would you have to save in order to justify killing all the murderers?

[j2k4]

Let&#39;s see, now-liberalism:

From Robert Bork:

"The idea of "liberty" has continuous change built into it, precisely because it is hostile to constraints.

Men seek the removal of the constraint nearest them.

But when that one falls, men are brought up against the next constraint, which is felt to be equally irksome.

That is why the agenda of liberalism is in constant motion and liberals of different eras would hardly recognize one another as deserving the same label.

Harry Truman would have hated the Sixties, and, because his liberalism contained more powerful constraints on individualism, he was not a liberal in the same sense that Bill Clinton is.

The perpetual motion of liberalism was described by T.S. Eliot half a century ago: &#39;That liberalism may be a tendency towards something very different from itself, is a possibility in it&#39;s nature.....It is a movement not so much defined by it&#39;s end, as by it&#39;s starting point; away from, rather than towards something definite.&#39;

What liberalism has constantly moved away from are the constraints on personal liberty imposed by religion, morality, law, family, and community.

Liberalism moves, therefore, toward radical individualism and the corruption of standards that movement entails.

"By destroying the traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified.....Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is it&#39;s own negation:
The artificial, mechanized or brutalized control which is a desperate remedy for it&#39;s chaos."

Hope this helps. ;)

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@20 November 2003 - 11:34


Think for a minute about the difficulty of gathering a statistic which would inform you definitively how many people do not commit murder precisely because there is a death penalty.
Well i&#39;m saying instead of death penalty lock them up for their life, where they are unable to commit murder (i&#39;m assuming a perfect jail.....). As for statistics, well they&#39;ve been produced some showing differences some no difference etc, but I think the most telling thing is that people in Europe seem to survive just fine, society hasn&#39;t crumbled yet.
How many lives of innocents would you have to save in order to justify killing all the murderers?
:huh: Huh? :huh:

[ilw]

I think i wasn&#39;t looking when i quoted :"> meant to quote

Say what you want, the death penalty sure deters those who would murder again.
is that clearer, or was it the rest of it equally bad :blink: It was a bit of a stream of consciousness type post.


Liberalism moves, therefore, toward radical individualism and the corruption of standards that movement entails.

"By destroying the traditional social habits of the people, by dissolving their natural collective consciousness into individual constituents, by licensing the opinions of the most foolish, by substituting instruction for education, by encouraging cleverness rather than wisdom, the upstart rather than the qualified.....Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is it&#39;s own negation:
The artificial, mechanized or brutalized control which is a desperate remedy for it&#39;s chaos."

I agreed whole heartedly with what that guy said about liberalism up until the point he mentioned corruption, then it gets a little biased i think. Liberalism imo represents a purifying of standards, freeing them from traditional prejudiced or uneducated bias. yes this may constitute a destruction of values imposed by religion, for me that makes perfect sense in a secular society, as for removing constraints imposed by family, community and morality, I&#39;m not 100% sure i understand what this means so i can&#39;t really argue, though the removal of moral values sounds intriguing.
Liberalism for me is all about change, sometimes for the worse, sometimes for the better, but imo its the only way society will progress. Obviously theres a balance to be struck, if you try and change too fast you&#39;ll be in the shit just as much as if you change too slow.

[j2k4]

ilw-

I think he meant corruption in the literal sense of loss of original (or pure) intent rather than connoting the negative-in the same sense "ignorance" literally means "absent knowledge of".

:)

[3RA1N1AC]

that description of liberalism, and correct me if i poorly summarize the gist of it, essentially complains that liberalism focuses entirely on individual freedom rather than on communal responsibility. this is typically in regard to society, family, culture, etc. if you consider liberal economic policy, there&#39;s a pattern of trying to strengthen communal bonds across economic lines by reducing the disparity between the upper & lower classes. although the middle & upper classes inevitably resent having to support the poor. especially the middle class, since they&#39;re given very few opportunities to avoid paying taxes. you could just dismiss this as pandering for votes, but how to explain the middle & upper class voters who support such policies which do not benefit themselves? surely there is some sense of charity & altruism involved, contradicting the idea that liberalism is all about selfishness.

and then mainstream conservativism is nearly the opposite on both social and economic points. conservatives typically have no problem with trying to enforce their views of social/communal correctness through law, but when it comes to economy it&#39;s an every-man-for-himself situation with zero regard for the health of society. it&#39;s the liberal approach to society, taken and applied to economy. isn&#39;t a wall street mover &#39;n&#39; shaker just as much a libertine regarding economics, as a san francisco bohemian might be in regards to social taboos? consider the t.s. eliot quote: "Liberalism can prepare the way for that which is it&#39;s own negation: The artificial, mechanized or brutalized control which is a desperate remedy for it&#39;s chaos." although intended as a reference to society, it&#39;s also a perfect fit for economics-- communist dictatorship as a reaction against the "individual comes first" laissez-faire capitalism.

the founding fathers and early government of the united states expressed great concern for the rights of individuals and minorities by putting restraints on majority rule-- with ideas like the separation of church & state, freedom of speech, the electoral college, the system of checks and balances, etc in order to prevent tyranny on several fronts including the tyranny of the majority. liberalism is by no means a mere appendix to the american way.

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by ilw@20 November 2003 - 16:34
yeah it comes down to your hard earned tax dollars, I&#39;m sure we could all save &#036;15 a month by killing off some of those spongers.

You may think these people are not fit to share your society, but you&#39;d kill them to save money? I&#39;m just curious, but i notice you mentioned rapists and paedophiles, would they all get the death penalty as well?...
It costs &#036;89,065 a year to house an elderly prisioner. It costs &#036;49,922 a year for the others. Currently there are about 56,167 people in prision. With 7,000 elderly, it costs around &#036;3,077,965,641 a year. And strangely enough, they&#39;re given opportunities I&#39;m not. Prisoners are able to take university courses or learn trades free of charge. I&#39;d have to pay well over &#036;3,000 a semester if I wanted to do that.

It has nothing to do with saving money. If a person is capable of killing well over 15 (and likely closer to 61) people over a period of time, and have absolutely no remorse for their actions, they frankly don&#39;t deserve to live. Obviously they don&#39;t value life.

I said I shouldn&#39;t have to pay to house all manner of scum. Perhaps they ought to take responsibility for their own actions.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Why, for purposes of this thread, don&#39;t we limit the parameters of the discussion to liberalism as it applies to societal considerations?

To interject the economic angle as counterpoint, or a defense of Liberalism on other fronts, creates an impasse in debate.

If you will agree, I will begin by stating that Liberalism has the effect of making amorallity a desirable condition, and defines freedom as life without stricture of any kind; indeed, as ilw ( and Mr. Eliot) say, Liberalism&#39;s core impetus is the continual (that is to say, unending) "refinement" of life, the shedding of "traditional" prejudice, or "uneducated" bias (BTW-what about "non-traditional prejudice", or "educated bias"? Are they okay?), what is the result when Liberalism has achieved the removal of all such "impediments?

Would not chaos result?

Is it your contention, 3RA1N1AC, that humans are somehow inherently capable of growing up and living a life uninformed by any parameters other than those they themselves choose?

How do they choose these limitations when Liberalism indicates limitations are to be ignored?

How, for example, would one who shrugs off societal mores to conclude that it is wrong to kill another human being?

[3RA1N1AC]

DOES liberalism make amorality a desirable condition? (notice in my previous post that i did not in any way concede to the claim that liberalism&#39;s inevitable result is immorality.)

or does it merely tolerate diverse moralities? moral relativitism is a far cry from anarchy. when you deal with absolute morality and come down to the point where you&#39;ve got to prove the authority of a moral, it&#39;s inevitably going to become a religious issue. religious texts serve as incredibly weak proof in the modern age. and if it comes down to that, then the separation of church & state is compromised because the government is granting legal authority to a religion.

i think at this point, moral relativism is a necessity, given the unprecedented global intertwinement of culture, politics and economy that we have nowadays. all the cultures and religions of the world will not simply crumble away in favor of western (much less american) morality. for a government to be morally relative toward the rest of the world, but morally absolute toward its own citizens, would be hypocritical. so i&#39;d say the trend must be toward moral relativism, both internationally and domestically, whether to the chagrin of conservatives or not.

and murder doesn&#39;t fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of morality. the government can address the issue of murder without invoking morality because the constitution (and the laws established through its authority) acts as a practical contract between the government and the citizenry. and one of the terms of the contract, implied or otherwise, is that the government does its best to ensure the well-being of the citizens that defer authority to it.

[j2k4]

Ah, moral relativism.

And how do we achieve this global consensus we must default to?

Take any single issue, and use moral relativism as a means of arbitrating international conflict.

Leave out the fact of religious influence in other countries and cultures; if we must operate under the (suddenly) onerous separation of church and state, so must they, yes?

Try getting the Islamics in the mideast to absent religion from their decision-making process.

After all, we are not bringing our Christianity to Iraq-the reason our troops find themselves under fire is that they are "infidels" who do not subscribe to Islam.

Tell the Palestinians they can&#39;t hate Israel and it&#39;s Jews anymore, because to do so violates the new international caveat separating church and state.

How would you propose to accomplish this?

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@20 November 2003 - 20:05
Leave out the fact of religious influence in other countries and cultures; if we must operate under the (suddenly) onerous separation of church and state, so must they, yes?

Try getting the Islamics in the mideast to absent religion from their decision-making process.

After all, we are not bringing our Christianity to Iraq-the reason our troops find themselves under fire is that they are "infidels" who do not subscribe to Islam.

Tell the Palestinians they can&#39;t hate Israel and it&#39;s Jews anymore, because to do so violates the new international caveat separating church and state.

How would you propose to accomplish this?
other countries can let religion rule their decision-making all they want. it&#39;s not our job to make any other country do anything. if they don&#39;t want liberalism (to the degree that american conservatives are more liberal than, say, most of iran), democracy, hollywood movies, greasy cheeseburgers, racial & religious tolerance, or separation of church & state, there&#39;s nothing in our constitution that says we should push any of that on them. if we were moral relativists, we wouldn&#39;t desire to make them comply with our ideals.

maybe there is a religious motivation to attacking american soldiers in iraq, or maybe to some degree it has to do with the fact that we&#39;ve invaded a country and overthrown its government. especially in the wakes of events of like the JFK or 9-11, it isn&#39;t kosher to express such a sentiment-- but chickens do come home to roost. pax americana and all that.

[ilw]

I was just thinking, is morality necessary, because as you say it does eventually come down to spiritualism i.e. a mystically defined good & bad, which i don&#39;t believe in and which in a truly multicultural society seems impracticable. So thinking about it I may be completely amoral, however, I think that in order for society to work you don&#39;t need morality, but you do need an underlying philosophy, ie not something that tells you whats right or wrong, but simply something which tells you what you can and can&#39;t do.

[j2k4]

Okay-

Just what do the two of you choose to call this "framework" for acceptable social behavior?

You&#39;ve ruled out morality, etc., and denied religion, family, etc., as being an "underlying" philosophy.

What is it?

Where does it come from?

Who defines it?

Remember now, nobody has a right to tell anybody what to do, and Liberalism dictates that we strive to be free of constraints.

Since nobody or nothing is to be exalted or held in higher regard than anyone or anything else, whence do societal rules come?

3RA1N1AC-

Make up your mind:

Is it to be moral relativism or not?

Why do we need to practice it in order that we might accomodate the rest of the world, but not the other way around?

Are you suggesting the U.S. and it&#39;s "philosophy" are entirely without legitimacy, or that in any case, it must subordinate itself to this "global mandate" you seem to think exists?

[ilw]

Personally i&#39;m no longer talking about America in particular, I;m just speaking about societies in general.

Just what do the two of you choose to call this "framework" for acceptable social behavior?
You&#39;ve ruled out morality, etc., and denied religion, family, etc., as being an "underlying" philosophy.
What is it?
Where does it come from?
Who defines it?
I&#39;ll choose"Universal declaration of human rights" as a good guiding principal. Where did the choice of these rights come from? Just plain ordinary humans, but to me it seems pretty sensible. Its just a logical list of rights for each member in a society and the principle it necessitates is that every member of that society respects the fundamental rights of every other member.



Since nobody or nothing is to be exalted or held in higher regard than anyone or anything else, whence do societal rules come?
Ah, imo its exactly the same way with justice, all are equal before the law and you are judged by a jury of your peers. Laws are chosen by the society and all who choose to dwell within the society are subject equally.

Edit: I was religion bashing for no real reason

[j2k4]

Originally posted by ilw@21 November 2003 - 11:18
Personally i&#39;m no longer talking about America in particular, I;m just speaking about societies in general.

Just what do the two of you choose to call this "framework" for acceptable social behavior?
You&#39;ve ruled out morality, etc., and denied religion, family, etc., as being an "underlying" philosophy.
What is it?
Where does it come from?
Who defines it?
I&#39;ll choose"Universal declaration of human rights" as a good guiding principal. Where did the choice of these rights come from? Just plain ordinary humans, but to me it seems pretty sensible. Its just a logical list of rights for each member in a society and the principle it necessitates is that every member of that society respects the fundamental rights of every other member.



Since nobody or nothing is to be exalted or held in higher regard than anyone or anything else, whence do societal rules come?
Ah, imo its exactly the same way with justice, all are equal before the law and you are judged by a jury of your peers. Laws are chosen by the society and all who choose to dwell within the society are subject equally.

Edit: I was religion bashing for no real reason
But we must talk about America in particular, as it is the only country required to labor under the separation of church and state.

Apparently America is the one which needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into this otherwise civilized and enlightened world.

ilw-

Who decides/arbitrates this "Universal Declaration of Human Rights"? Who gets "veto power"?

"Logical list of rights"?

Whose logic? What rights? Neither of these have any quality which approaches your requisite "universality".

A list of fundamental rights does not (nor can it) arise from this extant disparity and nothingness.

Remember-you have already disallowed all those institutions which have informed social structure down through the ages.

[3RA1N1AC]

i haven&#39;t denied family, community or religion as important elements of civilization. i&#39;m denying the superiority of any single definition of those things over any other definitions. how simply do i have to state it? i suggest respect for a diversity of morality, customs, and policies. on our part. which is not going to happen, so you don&#39;t have much to worry about, anyway. i don&#39;t see where you&#39;re getting the idea that if we respect them, they must be forced to respect us-- forcing them to do something is disrespect.

and you&#39;re reading too much into it. whatever you&#39;re gathering from my posts, it seems to be verging on some kind of UN conspiracy theory in which the u.s. sacrifices its sovereignty and ideals to the whims of dirty heathens. there is no mandate. but if it&#39;s the united states&#39; wish for other countries to be any less resentful toward us than they already are, we ought to show an ounce of respect for their ways-- rather than smacking them down whenever they stray from our ideals, and rather than sneaking around trying to manufacture changes in their governments, economies, and cultures. maybe you&#39;d like to think they&#39;re ("they" being the proverbial "player-haters") all just angry because we don&#39;t follow their religion or because they&#39;re jealous that we&#39;re just so rich and so awesome, but i think it&#39;s at least in part because we refuse to stop meddling (both overtly and subtly) in their business. why should we show them a little respect? because it gets expensive when we don&#39;t-- they resort to terrorism and we resort to invading their countries and spending billions upon billions of dollars trying to make them see things our way and killing them if they won&#39;t.

but we won&#39;t stop meddling. it ain&#39;t gonna happen. we&#39;ve got too much to gain, by molding the world to our satisfaction. well, i personally don&#39;t have much to gain, but people with deep pockets do. in light of that, i&#39;m wasting my breath.

oh, and i don&#39;t think the philosophies of the u.s. are illegitimate. i think the philosophy set down in the the constitution & its amendments are perfectly legitimate-- but i think a lot of things that people have tacked onto that philosophy are bunk. i think the equating of capitalism with democracy is bunk. i think the monroe doctrine and its influence on modern politics is bunk. i think the disdain we&#39;ve shown toward our indigenous population and toward foreign people near & far is bunk. i think the idea that puritan morality is interchangeable with "american" is bunk. i think the idea that symbols of government (the flag, the bald eagle, etc) are sacred is bunk. the constitution is all about personal freedom & the responsibilities of the gov&#39;t, it&#39;s nearly unassailable as a philosophical framework for a democratic republic-- and it manages this without once invoking morality or religion as the source of its authority. it is a secular document outlining a secular philosophy, acting as a contract between americans and their secular government-- and it&#39;s a heck of a lot more modern, civilized, and forward-thinking than a lot of other bunk out there that people seem to believe is equally important to the american philosophy.

</rant>

[j2k4]

So you think the U.S. Constitution is a pretty neat document, huh?

Secular through and through?

Purposeful in it&#39;s exclusion of religious mention?

Free from the input of the religiously informed?

Well, the Constitution proper ends with Article VII, which reads thus:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names....


THAT tells me all I need to know about that.

Kind of a glaring oversight for a collection of people whose intent (you seem to think) was not just to create a document to govern and guide matters secular, but instead formulated to drive a wedge between religion and government.

You, along with many others, mis-state the intent of the framers&#39; words; in no such public document is the intent stated to literally keep religion and government separate, per se, merely to avoid respecting any one religion over another. This is indicated rather clearly by one other mention of religion, in Article VI, Clause 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If their intent was as you say, no mention here would have been required.

The fact that this is so widely misunderstood is, I guess, a tribute to how well the revisionists have done their job. ;)

[3RA1N1AC]

if we are going to pass laws based on the morality of a religion, we are respecting it over another. our laws descend from interpretation of the constitution, not from interpretation of scripture.

anno domini? is that how you explain how badly i&#39;m trying to pervert the intentions of the constitution? and once again, you miss the point-- it is the basis of a secular philosophy that does not invoke morality or religion as the source of its authority. i stand by that claim, 100%. the separation of church & state comes from the supreme court&#39;s interpretation of the constitution. the constitution is by its very nature open to revised interpretations of its intent-- decrying "revisionism" as if we are obligated to honor the interpretation set forth by earlier americans at a specific date, is to miss the point.

to sincerely think that the phrase "the year of our lord" disproves all that (and i suppose archaeologists, anthropologists, etc are all paying explicit tribute to jesus by using the terms "B.C." and "A.D.")... to accuse me of corrupting the intentions of the constitution and then to hold up its use of the commonly accepted calendar system as a sign of religious devotion...

bah, nevermind.

</rant again>

[j2k4]

Can we not even agree that words mean things?

Tell me this then:

If the Constitution were being written today, would those phrasings have been included?

Believe me, 3RA1N1AC, the Founders were NOT intent on erasing any possible role for religion as a guidepost for socio-cultural mores.

Religion(s) (the Ten Commandments, etc.), across cultures and time, has/have been the predominant basis for ALL law, period.

This is not to say it informs as much today, nor that it should-but to fail even to acknowledge the truth of this? :blink:

[3RA1N1AC]

Originally posted by j2k4@22 November 2003 - 15:17
Religion(s) (the Ten Commandments, etc.), across cultures and time, has/have been the predominant basis for ALL law, period.

This is not to say it informs as much today, nor that it should-but to fail even to acknowledge the truth of this? :blink:
did religion arise as a simple means of communicating & enforcing human-conceived (or even instinctual) standards of acceptable and practical behavior? or did religion conjure these standards out of thin air or divine inspiration? which one is truly dependent on the other for its existence?

it&#39;s a riddle akin to "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" not a difficult riddle to solve. but good luck getting someone to agree with you, if their understanding of what constitutes reality (or human nature at the very least) is different from yours.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+22 November 2003 - 22:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC &#064; 22 November 2003 - 22:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@22 November 2003 - 15:17
Religion(s) (the Ten Commandments, etc.), across cultures and time, has/have been the predominant basis for ALL law, period.

This is not to say it informs as much today, nor that it should-but to fail even to acknowledge the truth of this? :blink:
did religion arise as a simple means of communicating & enforcing human-conceived (or even instinctual) standards of acceptable and practical behavior? or did religion conjure these standards out of thin air or divine inspiration? which one is truly dependent on the other for its existence?

it&#39;s a riddle akin to "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" not a difficult riddle to solve. but good luck getting someone to agree with you, if their understanding of what constitutes reality (or human nature at the very least) is different from yours.[/b][/quote]
All this merely to say that you prefer thin air over divine inspiration?

Why didn&#39;t you just say so? :D

[MagicNakor]

Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC@22 November 2003 - 23:33
...(and i suppose archaeologists, anthropologists, etc are all paying explicit tribute to jesus by using the terms "B.C." and "A.D.")...
The dating&#39;s changed. They&#39;re now CE and BCE, which translate to Common Era and Before Common Era.

:ninja:

[j2k4]

Originally posted by MagicNakor+22 November 2003 - 23:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (MagicNakor @ 22 November 2003 - 23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-3RA1N1AC@22 November 2003 - 23:33
...(and i suppose archaeologists, anthropologists, etc are all paying explicit tribute to jesus by using the terms "B.C." and "A.D.")...
The dating&#39;s changed. They&#39;re now CE and BCE, which translate to Common Era and Before Common Era.

:ninja: [/b][/quote]
MN-

Why wait &#39;til we&#39;re all tired and stuff?

I gotta go to bed now. :(

I know dating&#39;s changed-that&#39;s why I got married.

I don&#39;t have the energy anymore.

[MagicNakor]

I&#39;m a vampire.

I thought you knew.

:ninja:

[Biggles]

J2K4

Whilst the examples you originally cited are sad and ghastly I would be surprised if they were peculiar to the US. All nations have those who, for whatever reason, do things that disturb the foundations of social cohesion - be it in the US, Africa or Asia.

With regards to moral relativism, I am unconvinced that is the problem. Ghastly acts of cruelty can be found in any age and any culture - all shocking even by the standards prevailing at the time.

There will always be those who reject commonly held views on acceptable behaviour whether for personal gain, power or pleasure (or any combination of the three). Sometimes these people gain enough power to skew the whole of society as in Nazi Germany but mostly they plough a lonely furrow of self contained acts of unpleasantness, souring life for all who are unfortunate enough to come into contact with them.

[j2k4]

Biggles-good to see you here. :)

All you say is true, of course.

I am disappointed to be living in a society that fails to move with alacrity against such behavior, rather than just the individual, if even then.

I always regarded "Moral Relativism" as an institution where you brought certain dilemmas, the principles of which needing weighing.

I don&#39;t believe it is suited for use as just another tool to justify or vindicate every bad behavior that emerges from a twisted mind.

The method du jour seems to be, "Nothing else is working-let&#39;s try MORAL RELATIVISM&#33;"