Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Discuss.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,744|4943|USA

Jay wrote:

What great issues exist today? Slums and tenements? Gone. Sweatshops? Gone. Food safety? Gone, no matter what the anti-GMO crowd thinks. Wealth disparity? Never going away.
We have upgraded to cardboard boxes, freeway underpasses, sheltered bus stops and hollowed out thickets for our needy. We've moved all our sweatshops to developing nations. And we only have to worry about things like lead and mercury toxicity in our food as well as cross-contamination with other foods, as well as whether or not leaks from our local nuclear power plants (which are sooo much more professional than Japans, btw), have made their way into the fish on our table.

Yes, we're doing great. But at least Texas is spending time on religious priorities.

op wrote:

In your opinion is this good or bad?  Are you Pro Life or Pro Choice?
Pro common-sense. There is a middle ground, you know.
Nyte
Oldschool BF2S
+535|4924|Toronto, ON
Pro-choice.  Your body, your choice.
Alpha as fuck.
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|2367|Oklahoma

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

that's because sometimes, in a poorly functioning democracy (i.e. an unenlightened one), the many can oppress the few.

especially when the many are religious bigots with an ethics that is 2000 years old.
The whole "Tyranny of the Majority" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in my mind.  Again, this was one of the main reasons for states rights in the beginning, to avoid tyranny of the majority, and it works.  If people in Texas don't want people smoking weed, that will shouldn't prevent someone in California where everyone wants to, from being able to light up.  If people in California want to have abortion clinics on every corner, it shouldn't force people in Texas to have them when they don't want them. 

Another major issue I have with that argument is the fact that there is a LARGE difference between not getting what you want and tyranny.  Again, if you are a homosexual man in Texas that wants to get married so bad you can't stand it, to the point of feeling that you are being oppressed by a tyrannical state, there is nothing, NOTHING, stopping that man from going to Maine to get married.  There is NOTHING stopping that man from going some where of his own choosing that has values more in line with his own. 

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

why do you care so much that mothers in a state you don't live in want to terminate early-term pregnancies?
I grew up in Oklahoma but left my heart in Texas.  Lived in Texas for nearly 10 years and have wanted to go back ever since I left.  The only reason I don't live there anymore is the fact that my Learjet that flies me to work flies out of Oklahoma City and I don't want to drive 6 hours after I get off a plane.  I could fly commercial but commercial sucks fucking dick.  I may be moving back to Texas in the next few months too so hooray for me!

Last edited by Extra Medium (2013-06-26 22:21:58)

pirana6
Go Cougs!
+626|4462|Washington St.

Extra Medium wrote:

If people in Texas don't want people smoking weed, that will should prevent someone in California where everyone wants to, from being able to light up.
did you mis-write that?
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|2367|Oklahoma

pirana6 wrote:

Extra Medium wrote:

If people in Texas don't want people smoking weed, that will should prevent someone in California where everyone wants to, from being able to light up.
did you mis-write that?
Probably wasn't the best state to use in my example, but the concept is the same.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,615|4909|Oxferd
shouldnt?
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/6644/Xj4f2.png
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+626|4462|Washington St.
no i'm asking because you say if people in texas don't want people smoking weed, it should be that way everywhere. but in the next line you say if people in california want abortion clinics it shouldn't force everyone to have them
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+1,964|3529|London, England

Extra Medium wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

that's because sometimes, in a poorly functioning democracy (i.e. an unenlightened one), the many can oppress the few.

especially when the many are religious bigots with an ethics that is 2000 years old.
The whole "Tyranny of the Majority" argument doesn't hold a lot of weight in my mind.  Again, this was one of the main reasons for states rights in the beginning, to avoid tyranny of the majority, and it works.  If people in Texas don't want people smoking weed, that will should prevent someone in California where everyone wants to, from being able to light up.  If people in California want to have abortion clinics on every corner, it shouldn't force people in Texas to have them when they don't want them. 

Another major issue I have with that argument is the fact that there is a LARGE difference between not getting what you want and tyranny.  Again, if you are a homosexual man in Texas that wants to get married so bad you can't stand it, to the point of feeling that you are being oppressed by a tyrannical state, there is nothing, NOTHING, stopping that man from going to Maine to get married.  There is NOTHING stopping that man from going some where of his own choosing that has values more in line with his own. 

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

why do you care so much that mothers in a state you don't live in want to terminate early-term pregnancies?
I grew up in Oklahoma but left my heart in Texas.  Lived in Texas for nearly 10 years and have wanted to go back ever since I left.  The only reason I don't live there anymore is the fact that my Learjet that flies me to work flies out of Oklahoma City and I don't want to drive 6 hours after I get off a plane.  I could fly commercial but commercial sucks fucking dick.  I may be moving back to Texas in the next few months too so hooray for me!
Tyranny of the majority doesn't hold much weight with you? How Progressive.

The founding fathers you hold near and dear were terrified of it which is exactly why we are a Republic, not a Democracy. You, and most everyone else, love mob rule when you agree with it, and call it tyranny when you disagree. So which is it you want? Small government or a government that meddles in peoples private lives? Can't have both.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
pirana6
Go Cougs!
+626|4462|Washington St.

RTHKI wrote:

shouldnt?
yeah. i think he just missed a few letters in there somewhere
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4888

Jay wrote:

The founding fathers you hold near and dear were terrified of it which is exactly why we are a Republic, not a Democracy.
You mean democratic-republic.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|2367|Oklahoma

pirana6 wrote:

no i'm asking because you say if people in texas don't want people smoking weed, it should be that way everywhere. but in the next line you say if people in california want abortion clinics it shouldn't force everyone to have them
That was a error, meant to type shouldn't.  Sorry.

Jay wrote:

Tyranny of the majority doesn't hold much weight with you? How Progressive.

The founding fathers you hold near and dear were terrified of it which is exactly why we are a Republic, not a Democracy. You, and most everyone else, love mob rule when you agree with it, and call it tyranny when you disagree. So which is it you want? Small government or a government that meddles in peoples private lives? Can't have both.
Not at all.  To clarify why I don't believe Tyranny of the Majority to be an issue in America is the fact that the way the founding fathers got around this was states rights

EM wrote:

Another major issue I have with that argument is the fact that there is a LARGE difference between not getting what you want and tyranny.  Again, if you are a homosexual man in Texas that wants to get married so bad you can't stand it, to the point of feeling that you are being oppressed by a tyrannical state, there is nothing, NOTHING, stopping that man from going to Maine to get married.  There is NOTHING stopping that man from going some where of his own choosing that has values more in line with his own.
Tyranny would imply that the man has no course of action to improve upon his perceived oppression.  Via states rights he clearly has options, thus eliminating said perceived oppression.  The choice on whether or not to act upon his options is solely up to him, but he still has a choice.

plural tyr·an·nies
Definition of TYRANNY
1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially : oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2a : a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially : one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state
b : the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>


Number 2 rings true when you substitute "Federal government" for "single ruler".  When the Federal government imposes a law of moral and ethic nature upon the whole of the country it is bound to oppress someone in some manner.  The logical counter to this problem is the let the states decide for themselves, based on the wishes of their own local people, how to proceed on a given issue.  The Fed's part in that should be the regulation, protection and acknowledgements of those particular decisions.  For example if a gay man is married in Maine and resides in Texas, the Fed should be the entity that rules how Texas should or should not acknowledge and recognize that marriage for things that tie into the state level (i.e. tax returns and that sort of thing, whereas most government benefits that spouses inherit from each other already come from the federal level.)
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,268|4888
Wasnt the abortion bill only limits abortion to less than 20 weeks and not a ckmplete ban?
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,744|4943|USA

Nyte wrote:

Pro-choice.  Your body, your choice.
I hope you're pro-suicide too, or that won't make any sense.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+381|2426
of course he's pro suicide. He's Asian.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|4853|Disaster Free Zone

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Nyte wrote:

Pro-choice.  Your body, your choice.
I hope you're pro-suicide too, or that won't make any sense.
pro-suicide, pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion.
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+381|2426
but not pro-beta. #alphaonly
Nyte
Oldschool BF2S
+535|4924|Toronto, ON

DrunkFace wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Nyte wrote:

Pro-choice.  Your body, your choice.
I hope you're pro-suicide too, or that won't make any sense.
pro-suicide, pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion.
I AM actually pro-suicide.  And pro-euthanasia.  Anyone opposing those are most likely conservative fundamentalists.  And I don't share any of those groups fucked up backwards views.
Alpha as fuck.
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,615|4909|Oxferd
please stop
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/6644/Xj4f2.png
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+555|4885|Purplicious Wisconsin
Personally pro-life, after some thinking over the years I honestly believe a better fight would be to give the father some rights to the child. Right now a woman can just abort a baby without even telling the father about being pregnant, I find that wrong.

There needs to be changes in our abortion laws,  sure it is the woman's body, but 50% of what is growing in it also belongs to the father. If the woman doesn't want the child the father should be able to prevent the future child being aborted. Only exceptions to this are risk of mother dying and possibly raped(debatable).

My side needs to go to a different battlefield that they have a better chance at winning.

Extra Medium wrote:

I'm Pro-Life and I think it was a great decision.  This issue is also one of the reasons I'm a strong advocate of states rights.  Texas is an overwhelmingly conservative state as well as a religious state.  Whether you agree with conservatism or religion, the fact of the matter is that the majority of people in Texas believe in these things and the laws and policies should follow what the majority wants.  That's what Texas did and I think it's great.
Give it a decade and Texas will be dominated by democrat voting hispanics.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|2367|Oklahoma

War Man wrote:

Give it a decade and Texas will be dominated by democrat voting hispanics.
After the bill that passed today it already is.

Brilliant political maneuver by the Democrats.  They now have the next racial majority on lockdown for at least the next 50 years.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|4324|what

Enjoy the political wilderness, Republicans.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
RTHKI
mmmf mmmf mmmf
+1,615|4909|Oxferd
enjoy posting reddit pics
https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/6644/Xj4f2.png
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,760|4324|what

I do. I really, really do.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png

"coz you a far cry from acclaim nigga ubisoft"
Extra Medium
THE UZI SLAYER
+79|2367|Oklahoma

AussieReaper wrote:

Enjoy the political wilderness, Republicans.
You make it sound like we haven't already been in it for the better part of 7 years.
Roc18
`
+655|3962|PROLLLY PROLLLY PROLLLY
Everyone's situation is different. Abortion isn't black and white.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2019 Jeff Minard