pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 5, 2004 0:58:40 GMT -5
A good website I have found about propaganda is www.propagandacritic.com/ After reading things like that, I always think of the election advertisements on TV - from both sides. Most qualify as little more than fluffy propaganda, with huge generalizations and the like. Not that some of them aren't funny, but that does not mean that they aren't horribly propagandistic. In fact, much of politics qualifies as bad propaganda.  |
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 5, 2004 6:00:21 GMT -5
Yup. Totally. But it still amazes me how Bush has managed to sweep so much under the carpet. So much controversy (Abu-Graib prison, embarrassing failure to find WMDs, no Osama yet), as well as the (probably) hundreds of random dodgy things like in that link I posted. I mean, if that particular story had been in an Australian paper, about an Australian political scandal, there'd be NO CHANCE IN HELL of the leader being re-elected, and a much bigger uproar than there seems to have been about Bush in the US. There have been heaps of books and a movie about it, I suppose, but I'm still really shocked that he got back in...  |
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 5, 2004 14:31:14 GMT -5
the truth is, if there was a similar situation in another country in afric, minus the oil, we wouldnt have gone there.
in any case there sure didnt seem to be any wmd or terrorists
I heard an interesting point from a coworker a few days ago. His brother is in Iraq and he would say that he has seen WMD. The thing is these little WMD have little red and white stripes on them because we gave them to Iraq many years ago when they were the "lesser of 2 evils." He said the country would not want to come forward with these WMD because we would be going to war with a country and blaiming them for accepting a gift from us. Its kind of interesting although im not sure if its true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 5, 2004 21:51:41 GMT -5
Yes, it is true. The American government is so damn hypocritical; it also retains its own nuclear weapons while forcing others to give up theirs. Sounds like an excellent world-domination plot to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 6, 2004 1:00:35 GMT -5
why cant we all just get along
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 6, 2004 1:24:21 GMT -5
 yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by desertfox on Nov 9, 2004 8:22:52 GMT -5
Hopefuly bush will correct some of the problems that he created in his first four years in office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Nov 9, 2004 8:57:45 GMT -5
Hopefuly bush will correct some of the problems that he created in his first four years in office. Such as? |
|
pericles
Novice
Advocatus Diaboli
Posts: 55
|
Post by pericles on Nov 9, 2004 16:27:57 GMT -5
Yes, it is true. The American government is so damn hypocritical; it also retains its own nuclear weapons while forcing others to give up theirs. Sounds like an excellent world-domination plot to me. I think what the US is primarily concerned with is rogue nations developing nukes. I think that whatever our opinions of Bush are, he will (probably) not just randomly nuke other nations. A rogue nation such as North Korea or Iran is much more likely to, however, or possibly provide nuclear weapons to a terrorist group which would do the same. It is somewhat arrogant that the US considers itself and only a few other nations good enough to have nukes, but it may be an arrogance that is needed to stabilize the world. Too many nations with too many nukes would make for a scarier world, methinks. |
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Nov 12, 2004 10:11:46 GMT -5
"Er, no, I am certainly not saying that abortion is a "bad" thing. On the contrary, I am saying that even if one DOES believe it to be a bad thing, this fails to consider the horrific ramifications of criminalising it; if Christian women don't believe in abortions, they can choose not to have them. They should NOT, however, force those who ARE in need of them to do so in highly dangerous, dirty, conditions. The criminalising of abortion would destroy countless young women's lives. Christians have their own set of rules, society has another, and Christians need to realise and accept this. Not all people share your morality and you need to respect this."
-Shiggy
Dan wanted me to look at your argument because he thought there were fallacies. Not to be mean, but I found a few.
#1 Affirming the Consequent
Christians argue: Since abortion is bad, it should be illegal.
You argue: If it is illegal, then abortion will be bad (thus Christians must support its legalization.)
#2 Glittering Generality
"The criminalising of abortion would destroy countless young women's lives."
This makes it sound as if there are hundreds of thousands of women rushing to abortion clinics because if they have babies they will get thrown out on the sreets and starve to death. It doesn't really answer Pericles' argument but merely paints yours in a very sentimental light (almost as though the argument were woman vs. fetus.)
#3 Unstated Assumption
"Christians have their own set of rules, society has another, and Christians need to realise and accept this."
The unstated assumption here is that Christians and society are different. Since when is society an organized block that stands in stark contrast to Christianity? Aren't Christians part of society, too? If we're arguing about Christians, don't the majority of Americans identify themselves as one?
So who's society supports which rules?
#4 Begging the Question
"Not all people share your morality and you need to respect this."
This statement begs the question because the argument is about moral values. You are in effect answering, saying "Since morals are different, I'm right" while pericles is trying to argue "Your morals are wrong." Of course pericles recognizes that moral standards are different - that is what he is arguing about. You are proving your assertion with the assertion itself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shiggy on Nov 13, 2004 5:15:48 GMT -5
The fact is that abortion will still exist if you criminalise it. All criminalisation would do would be to make the conditions appalling for those in genuine need of it. Personally, I can't see any benefits of criminalisation, and a lot of lives being ruined. This is an issue of systematic social oppression. The fact that this could be seen as a "sentimental" issue, as you put it, doesn't matter - if anything, the huge negative life consequences criminalisation would have, emotional and otherwise, are reasons not to jump into this potentially dangerous legal change. No-one has put forward any solutions to this; Christians largely simply want to ban it outright because they think it is morally wrong. Laws need to be socially beneficial, and imo the negative social consequences of criminalisation far outweigh any benefits (are there any?).
It doesn't matter whether people think abortion "is [morally] bad" or not if its social and personal consequences are brutal and humiliating for the individuals they effect; no-one in the pro-life camp seems to care at all about women's lives or how they'll be effected by this potential social stigma and medical risk. The fact is that rape happens (often), and people will make mistakes with sex (male and female), but it is consistently the woman who shoulders the social and physical burden when this happens. This certainly doesn't need to be made any worse; imo it would be utterly pointless. We should be working on laws to help the oppressed rather than painting them as murderers - women don't get abortions because they get pleasure out of it, they go because they desperately need to escape from an extremely difficult life-situation for their personal security and wellbeing. There is a genuine social need for the service so I can see no reason for taking it away.
This sentence shows your complete lack of understanding of what is at stake; it often iswoman vs foetus. Single parents are among the poorest and most disadvantaged social groups in existence. Having a baby at a young age destroys many life options and long-term potentialities, especially earning capacity, of women, setting them up for a lifetime of financial hardship. It is unfair that women bear these problems alone and in isolation; the father's life continues relatively uninterrupted in comparison with the social hardship experienced by young mothers.
Morals have little to do with what I am arguing; sheer issues of social disadvantage are sufficient.
|
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 14, 2004 0:39:25 GMT -5
I think the issue is not to outlaw abortion but to change the economy so that abortions are not needed. During the Clinton administration, when there was more money being given to the poor and less people living in extreem poverty, abortion rates were constantly falling. When the economy is doing poorly, more people do not want to get married because of the cost. This leaves more mothers with fathers who are not bound by marrage so they leave. Single mothers do not want to take care of a child by themself so they get an abortion. Now put a guy like President Bush in office who gives the money, not to the rich, but to the poor. This makes the poor even more poor and leaves them with not enough money to take care of their kids. This sure makes abortion look like a good option. Then send the fathers overseas to fight a war. What mother wants to take care of a child when the father is in another country? We all know that outlawing alcohol did not stop people from drinking it. And a more recent outlawing of marijuana does not stop people from smoking it. What is needed is not for the government to outlaw abortion when people want it but to change the mindset of the people and the situation they are livivng in. If it were to stop giving so much money to presidents and people who own ketchup factories and stop giving tax breaks to the rich and start giving that money to the poor then there would be less abortions. One might try convincing the people that abortion is wrong instead of marching around washington DC with signs and having bumper stickers and T-shirts that boast "abortion is murder." This does nothing. Absolutly nothing. No person will change their mind about abortion because of some tshirt that says "abortion is murder." Of course it might cause someone severe anguish who commited abortion and later came to the conclusion what they did was wrong. I propose that people take off their t-shirts, remove their bumper stickers, put their signs away and start caring for the mother who has resorted to an abortion because they do not have enough money to raise the child. Maybe groups like the "Christian Coalition" should put their flags away and raise money for those mothers who need it to raise a child. Of course I understand this will not bring an end to all abortions but I am sure it will significantly decrease the number. You can find information on the abortion rate through 2000 here www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htmI cant seem to find the link with information about the curren t abortion rate but if your interested I will look more for that. Another interesting web site were I have read some of this information is www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0406&article=040610 |
|
|
|
Post by Areopagite on Nov 14, 2004 18:01:24 GMT -5
We all know that outlawing alcohol did not stop people from drinking it. And a more recent outlawing of marijuana does not stop people from smoking it. [/url][/quote] So according to your logic, murder shouldn't be illegal? |
|
|
|
Post by joelhaldeman on Nov 14, 2004 22:37:49 GMT -5
No, according to my logic, you cannot make something illegal until you convince the people that it is wrong. The general population knows that murder is wrong; they understand why it is illegal. In the case of alcohol, people didnt think it was wrong and were not convinced that there was a good reason to outlaw so the people didnt obey. The abortion issue will not be solved by legislation but by convincing the people that it is wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobarian on Nov 16, 2004 22:02:03 GMT -5
So why isn't the converse true? (If no one believes that murder is wrong, then it is ok to do it.) Speeding limit is actually an interesting example of this...  |
|
yes.
