Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal the_mad_poster's Journal: Questions for Conservative Readers 42

Journal by the_mad_poster

Okay... questions....

A lot of conservatives voice their support for the war in terror and in Iraq. The problem is that the Iraq 2 war was sold to those same people on the grounds that Iraq was a threat and had or could obtain WMDs. This has proven untrue.

Barring the true screwballs who think, without even the most superficially flimsy evidence to back them, that the WMDs grew legs and walked to another country, this doesn't make any sort of sense, consistently. Here's why:

A common response for the acceptability of the war , despite the complete failure of the original justifications, is "but we're freeing the Iraqis". Okay, that's (possibly) true and (sort of..) noble, but it's still just saying the ends justify the means. Under that logic, they must also support Osama Bin Laden, or be inconsisten. After all, all OBL wants is for the West to quit meddling in the middle east. Not a bad thing to want, it's just his tactics that are bad. After all, the revolutionary war in the U.S. was, generaly speaking, about Old Europe (Britain, specifically) not meddling in our affairs, and we think that's generally proven to be a good thing. OBL wants the U.S. to quit meddling in the middle east, and the ends justify the means, therefore, OBL's tactics, 9/11? All must be acceptable to have any consistency of belief.

Discuss.

Next point (thanks to Tuxette for this one). If you support abortion, particularly if you think rape is not sufficient to have an abortion, would you support your taxes automatically being used to pay for 100% of the costs associated with the child you won't allow to be aborted? Would you support socialist principles in this case, or must the woman who didn't ask for the child be forced to suffer financially because she was raped?

Discuss.

This discussion was created by the_mad_poster (640772) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Questions for Conservative Readers More

Questions for Conservative Readers

Comments Filter:
  • Great questions. I can't wait to see the responses if anyone bites.
  • ...that the anti-choice whackjobs also think that the woman should bear all costs of the pregnancy, including medical care, maternity clothes, all costs associated with lost time from work or not getting a job due to showing up at the interview with a big belly, costs associated with getting the body back in shape after pregnancy, etc. Of course they're not going to pay for it!
    • Of course - if you're white, and drug free, you can get an adoption sponsor. If you're white. If not, then well... let me introduce you to the intrusive cylindrical incline device.

      Sponsored pregnancies happen for black people, too. It's just rare. Then... it's not my problem that black women can't get adoption sponsors...

      Of course, race favoritism is O.K. when its deciding the color of your adoptive baby... right? Then, it's not really racism... right? There's no reason for affirmative action, there

  • therefore, OBL's tactics, 9/11? All must be acceptable to have any consistency of belief.

    I know I could end up on a few foes lists for this but, this seems like a perfectly fair argument to me. I've lived in Belfast for most of my life, so you might be able to say I've had first hand experience of terrorism and spoken to terrorists on more than one occasion (no, I'm not a supporter), but what surprises me is how reasonable these guys seem in their daily lives. Family men who normally act just like yo
    • I have never lived in Belfast. It might be interesting to have had the discussions you have. But I have had an interesting breakthrough on this matter.

      I was listening to the Christy Moore CD "Christy Moore" and suddenly it struck me: 80% of the songs on the CD were terrorist (IRA) propaganda. These include "No Time for Love," "Unfinished Revolution," and even non-local ones like "Biko Drum."

      What ties these songs together is the argument that "resistance in Belfast" is part of a greater struggle for so

      • I have never lived in Belfast. It might be interesting to have had the discussions you have.

        They where more arguments than discussions. My opinions are not the norm round here.

        I was listening to the Christy Moore CD "Christy Moore" and suddenly it struck me: 80% of the songs on the CD were terrorist (IRA) propaganda. These include "No Time for Love," "Unfinished Revolution," and even non-local ones like "Biko Drum."

        Unfortunately this goes much deeper than you think. From what I'm told (I've never

        • I don't think America can solve the Israel/Palestine conflict, like Northern Ireland, this is another place where peace only comes when both sides want peace more than they want victory.

          Like it or not, the US is a part of the problem because we provide so much foreign aid to Israel. Furthermore, the way in which we provide this aid provides a perverse incentive to continue the conflict. So we should not "solve the problem" for them, but phase out that aid if they don't solve it themselves.

          BTW, I like l

          • Like it or not, the US is a part of the problem because we provide so much foreign aid to Israel. Furthermore, the way in which we provide this aid provides a perverse incentive to continue the conflict. So we should not "solve the problem" for them, but phase out that aid if they don't solve it themselves.

            I know little of American politics, so please correct me, but doesn't the "Jewish vote" mean that successive presidents have always had a hard time being anything other than friendly to Israel? (althoug

            • I know little of American politics, so please correct me, but doesn't the "Jewish vote" mean that successive presidents have always had a hard time being anything other than friendly to Israel? (although this could be a misinterpretation of BBC reporting on my part).

              It is more complicated than that. There is a Jewish constituancy which sees any criticism of Israel as an attack on Jews. Which is strange given that Yitzach Shameer was a Nazi sympathizer during WWII and yet became Prime Minister if Israel.
  • right here [cafepress.com]
  • I didn't really care *why* Iraq was being invaded. It seemed to me that the U.S. was mobilizing to invade somebody else besides Afghanistan and Iraq has always been on the list of governments begging for a purging.

    It made a lot of sense but mostly from the "Saddam has been gassing people in his country for decades" point of view. It didn't help that he started his work in the Baath party as a torturer. Unfortunately, most of the first world gets real squeemish about invading a country unless that country i
    • So then to you the ends justify the means? Bin Laden is doing the right thing based on his beliefs. However since he is the enemy he must be stopped.
      • I've been contemplating how to respond to Arbix's comment. The problem is that taking the position of "kill the enemy because he's the enemy, not because he's done anything wrong in my belief" is legitimate. Yes, to be consistent Arbix must accept Bin Laden's actions as acceptable, but he can still say that we need to kill Bin Laden for practical reasons.

        It's hard divorcing oneself from their preconceived opinions, but it's helpful. If you can wreck a person's position without falling back to ideals, you s
      • When is war *not* ends justifying means? People killing each other is *always* the end justifying the means.

        Besides, trying to love your enemy into submission results in him having more power than you.
  • "would you support your taxes automatically being used to pay for 100% of the costs associated with the child you won't allow to be aborted?"

    See, we've got to get over this whole thing of letting the right frame the debate. We let 'em frame the abortion debate and now even those of us on the left call these fascists "pro-life" even as they murder doctors.

    Let's get one thing straight. "Pro-life" is a complete and utter misnomer, and intentionally so. All these people are is pro-BIRTH. Once the fetus be
    • Except you're trying to frame the debate in your own extremes. Heh.
      • I don't consider letting people be in charge of their own genitals to be extreme. Therefore I disagree.
        • But claiming all the prolifers support killing doctors and none of them support financial support for the mother is blinkered in the same way as those you're attacking. I know lots of prolife people who are appalled at the doctor killing and donate heavily to their churches who in turn provide support for unwed mothers. I guess they don't count?

          For the record, I'm pro choice, but it's not a choice I would ever take if there was any reasonable other way out of the situation. Lucky for me, I'm white and ma

          • "But claiming all the prolifers support killing doctors and none of them support financial support for the mother is blinkered in the same way as those you're attacking."

            That wasn't what I was trying to say, and I apologize if it came off that way. I know that the vast (silent) majority of pro-lifers were completely horrified at the doctor killings.

            But the leadership's silence was *deafening*.

            "I know lots of prolife people who are appalled at the doctor killing and donate heavily to their churches who i

    • See, we've got to get over this whole thing of letting the right frame the debate. We let 'em frame the abortion debate and now even those of us on the left call these fascists "pro-life" even as they murder doctors.

      Heh, we frame the debate huh? Is that why I'm always refered to as an "anti-abortion rights activist" in newspapers, while people who support the right to an abortion are called "abortion rights" activists? We used to be called pro-life, but no longer. As for murdering doctors, you can c

      • "Is that why I'm always refered to as an "anti-abortion rights activist" in newspapers,"

        So let me see if I understand: a) you oppose abortion rights, but b) we shouln't call you "abortion right opponents" newspapers?

        what [washtimes.com] about [bbc.co.uk] these [post-gazette.com] newspapers? [gazettetimes.com]

        Or [salon.com] these? [worldmag.com]

        How about the dictionary? [reference.com]

        But you know, I'm glad you made me do all this digging for you. Because it unearthed exactly what I was trying to say by a person more qualified than I to say it. Full transcript is here [pbs.org], but here's the good part (this is f

        • Wow, so you can find some newspaper articles where my position is refered to as "pro-life". Good for you. Would you like me to go find a bunch where it is not? Is that how we'll continue this argument? I was speaking from my perception that as time passes, more and more newspapers and radio broadcasts refer to "abortion rights opponents" over "pro-life advocates". That's all. I haven't performed some scientific analysis on the issue, but being the news-junkie I am, that's what I've noticed.

          Look

          • "I was speaking from my perception that as time passes, more and more newspapers and radio broadcasts refer to "abortion rights opponents" over "pro-life advocates"."

            No. You were making a gross generalization about all "liberal" media, as knee-jerk conservatives are wont to do, and I was pointing out that there were many (and very liberal) news outlets contradicting that generalization. You claimed you were being misrepresented in your position and choice of self-nomenclature, and I pointed out that you'

            • I think there has been some misinterpretation on both of our sides, mostly due to what our previous experiences with the other side has been (like my socialist state comment). I honestly was not trying to just pick and choose arguments to respond to or ignore anything particular in your response, I simply don't have the time to really engage people in good debates on Slashdot, which is why I'm usually quiet. Being a near full-time student, full-time employee and full-time dad and husband makes it impossi

            • Maybe the silent majority of pro-lifers should reconsider their knee-jerk support of said leadership. They're giving all y'all a black eye.

              The sheer number of abortions in this country per year (up to 1.4 millions per year, by some estimates) precludes anyone with even a basic belief that human life begins deserves to be protected before 22 weeks from voting for a Democrat. That is to say, if you think abortion is equivalent to murder in most cases, the stakes are simply too high to not vote Republican,

  • I'm for the war in Iraq, and have been from the begining from an Imperial standpoint to get oil. If the president had to made facades to give us a more friendly supplier for our automobiles, then I'm all for it. Anything to lower the cost of gasoline.

    I'm pro-choice, so whatever you want to do to your body is your business. Want me to light that joint for you while you're 6 months pregnant? Fine, but don't come to me when your kid has birth defects.
    • Actually, and we've been through this, you have a heavy mix of liberal and facist viewpoints if you're being forthcoming on your positions. A heavy militaristic bent with a "winner take all" attitude, you'd feel right at home in a place like North Korea or Mussollini's Italy (so long as you were part of the ruling class, not one of the plebes...).

      You appear to hold almost no conservative values at all, save the few superficial economic positions that mingle between typical facists and conservatives.

  • Ok, I'll bite (Score:3, Insightful)

    by M.C. Hampster ( 541262 ) <M DOT C DOT TheHampster AT gmail DOT com> on Monday February 21, 2005 @09:24AM (#11735199) Journal

    On the Iraq war issue, I see no question posed, so I can't answer them.

    On the abortion issue, if we were to outlaw all abortion except for saving the life of the mother, I would definitely be for a program to completely pay for the costs associated with pregnancy and adoption (if so wished) for a woman who was raped.

    Of course, being a conservative, I'd rather see that aid come from private organizations, rather than faceless beaurocrats. (You had to know that was coming. :-)

    • There's no biting, it's not a troll. I guess at worst you're giving me information to help me dismantle these positions in the future because I'll better understand the mindset that's working behind them.

      What about emotional suffering? Would you be willing to compensate her through taxes for the emotional durress she'll suffer from being forced to carry a pregnancy from rape to term? Would you be willing to completely compensate her for all lost work, the cost of rehabilitating her body, any and any necess

      • What about emotional suffering? Would you be willing to compensate her through taxes for the emotional durress she'll suffer from being forced to carry a pregnancy from rape to term? Would you be willing to completely compensate her for all lost work, the cost of rehabilitating her body, any and any necessary counseling?

        Yes, on all counts.

        As for Iraq, I guess I disagree with your premise, at least for me. I was for the Iraq war for more reasons than WMD's, so the fact they haven't been found doesn't

        • I'm not getting at what you think of the war itself, I'm getting at what you think about Bush's push for the war. Do you or do you not find his handling of the push to war acceptable knowing that all of the justifications he gave were false? And, if so, how do you justify your position?

          • Personally, I think there were more reasons to go to war with Iraq than just WMD's, and I believe the Bush Administration thought so too. However, you are correct in saying that the main reason given (and at times, the only reason given) was the presence of WMD's. Now, I don't know the specifics, but from the sounds of it, it was overwhelmingly thought that he did have WMD's and was working getting more, like developing nuclear weapons. Yes, there were people who said he didn't, but most of them (I'm ta

            • At this point, the administration thinks we can't just get up and leave, and I happen to agree with them. I do dislike the appearance given by the administration and supporters of the administration that this was the reason we went all along. But again, the main justification given, while it turns out to be false, was something that most people agreed on. Before the war, most of the arguing was whether or not we should go to war because of the WMD's, not if there were any.

              Ah the Iraq delima. We are resen
  • I'm all for abortion. I don't think we're doing enough of it. Frankly, let's start sterilizing people outright.

    Hey you, you over there. You and your family have been on the rolls since 1975? Gimmie your nutsack.

    You, you in the Mercedes... Your last trip to Thailand... yeah that trip. Gimmie your nuts.

    Hey lady. You drinking the Margarita at 0800. Gimmie your uterus.

    But more to the point of abortion. If you fuckwits would be slightly reasonable about it the the Right could keep the religous nuts at
    • New technology shows us that "fetuses" actively avoid needles. That tells me "fetuses" feel pain.

      First off, I've never heard of such thing. Respectable medical reference please. Second, are you suggesting that human beings are instinctually aware of the concept of a needle and know to avoid it? Because I've seen babies get their first shots. They don't avoid it the first time, they cry after they're stuck and fear it from then on. I'd also like to know how, given that a fetus cannot possibly see the need
      • 1) Fair enough references will becoming... sadly I have to go to Home Depot and purchase 0s because some fuckwit on the block who should have been aborted keeps stealing them

        2) Sorry. "fetuses" are able to do just fine after 6mos hosting in mommy. Further until a kid is about 3 it really can't fend for itself at all-are they fair game too? You don't have any kids do you?

        3) Fine. Abortion for tubals. My wife went through that - very not fun. Fucking horrible actually. Frankly a bad ending to a bad s
        • Your second point is false. A fetus isn't really 'just fine' until about 30 to 32 weeks when it's coming into that last stretch that basically just wraps up the loose ends and puts some meat on its bones. I believe 24 weeks is actually the youngest a preemie has -ever- survived, but the odds are quite firmly stacked against them at that young of an age because it's just not likely that it has developed enough of its own systems to make it on just life support.

          Also, it makes me not happy that someone steals
        • In utero, eyelids remain closed until about the 26th week. However, the fetus is sensitive to light, responding to light with heart rate accelerations to projections of light on the abdomen. This can even serve as a test of well-being before birth. Although it cannot be explained easily, prenates with their eyelids still fused seem to be using some aspect of "vision" to detect the location of needles entering the womb, either shrinking away from them or turning to attack the needle barrel with a fist (Birnh
          • I don't like the Internet and you've hilighted, quite effectively, why. I asked for defense of your claim and you found something that defended it, but you didn't bother to actually look into the background of the organization that presented what you're now presenting me.

            Alas, you're right. I cannot accept your linked "evidence". The APPPAH says right on it's about page that it's nothing more than a 501(c)(3). That is, it's a non-profit organization that's under no obligation to disclose the donors that ar
    • Regarding abortion, it is informative to actually read Roe V. Wade and see how conservative the court's methodology was in this case. They looked back to common law traditions several centuries old and was able bring up the fact that there was a strong legal tradition which suggested that a fetus which had demonstrated movement was more protected than one which wasn't.

      Additionally, we have a court tradition (at heart in the Schiavo case today) which has generally held that choice of medical treatment is p
  • I consider myself both conservative and progressive. The key aspects of these are:

    Conservatives look to the past for insight into how to solve modern problems. They support conserving resources (both fiscal and natural). I would consider Teddy Roosevelt to be a conservative. To a conservative, the government should be attempting to reign in social change. Indeed, I think Roosevelt's trust-busting platform could be seen as very conservative due to the newness of the large industry of the industrial rev

Slashdot Top Deals

"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." - Voltaire

Close