The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux) - Page 440

Prudence · 04-30-2009, 11:39 PM

Speaking of panic....SC justice nomination time!

scaeagles · 05-01-2009, 05:00 AM

The left has nothing to panic about with that. They control everything. The right can't stop any nominee.

Alex · 05-01-2009, 05:10 AM

Well, on that one issue the filibuster is irrelevant. The Repubilcans made it very clear a couple years ago that filibustering judicial nominees was essentially treason but at minimum violated the spirit of things.

scaeagles · 05-01-2009, 06:14 AM

I don't think they'll have the numbers to filibuster, and even if they did, I'd be unhappy should they go that route. I think filibustering nominees is despicable. Let the nominee have an up or down vote. You don't like the nominee, win elections. I have no doubt I will not like who he chooses, but the reality is it is his choice and that individual (and the President) should get an up or down vote.

I am certain there will be calls to fight back in the same way, and I'm sure the dems will act shocked and as if this had never happened before should it happen. This is not to say the nominee should not be thoroughly examined.

Ghoulish Delight · 05-01-2009, 10:02 AM

Wow, when I read that there was going to be a SC opening, I assumed it was RBG.

On an entirely different subject - I've heard so many times how atheism is evil because it would leave us with people who are only in it for themselves, with no compassion for other people since, without God, we are just amoral individuals whose only motivation would be self preservation.

That doesn't seem to jive with this observation. The more you go to church, the more likely you are to be okay with torture. The group least likely to support torture are people with no religious affiliation.

Now, we could go back and forth about how it's not a matter of religious people not having compassion, it's about preserving a way of life that they consider superior. I won't argue against that (too strongly), it's a valid possible explanation for why their percentages would be higher. I'm not pointing to this study as a damnation of religion, per se. I'm more interested in the fact that it seems to debunk the "amoral atheist" assertion. Whatever the reasons for the high acceptance of torture among the practicing religious aside, it's completely counter to the claim of atheists having no reason to have compassion for other human beings. If it were the case, they should support torture in FAR greater numbers as the only reason to not support it is compassion. If it were purely about selfish self preservation, ateists should be all about any-means-necessary.

Of course, the rest result does not surprise me in the least. Religion's great achievement is the breeding of "in-group vs. out-group" mentality. It's a useful and understandable survival tool for societies as, lacking other protections, it's a convenient way of ensuring that you are surrounded by people you trust. But the side effect, by necessity of the construct, means that anyone deemed an outsider loses their humanity and is no longer "deserving" of the compassion and caring religions purport to value.

And please assume the standard disclaimers that individual attitudes and individual examples of good religious people and/or bad non-religious people are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about large-scale trends and attitudes, the kind of aggregate effects demonstrated by societal action and surveys like the one posted.

Alex · 05-01-2009, 10:32 AM

This is complete speculation on my part with no studies or anything to back it up.

But if you believe in a deity that tortures (for an eternity) simply out of revenge as many evangelicals do, then I'd have to think that torturing for the actually (potentially) useful purpose gaining information that might save lives may not be as large a step to take.

Tom · 05-01-2009, 02:42 PM

I nominate Alex for the Supreme Court.

Where's the suggestion box?

Alex · 05-01-2009, 02:46 PM

I'd accept but I'd just get Borked when my video rental history was leaked.

Gemini Cricket · 05-01-2009, 05:27 PM

I got Borked the other night. And when Cherny does it, does he actually get Bjorked? Wait. What are we talking about exactly?!

SacTown Chronic · 05-01-2009, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

I'd accept but I'd just get Borked when my video rental history was leaked.

No dude, it's 2009. Your little ~~problem~~ fetish is no big deal these days.

04-30-2009, 11:39 PM	#4391
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	Speaking of panic....SC justice nomination time! __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 05:00 AM	#4392
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	The left has nothing to panic about with that. They control everything. The right can't stop any nominee.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 05:10 AM	#4393
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Well, on that one issue the filibuster is irrelevant. The Repubilcans made it very clear a couple years ago that filibustering judicial nominees was essentially treason but at minimum violated the spirit of things.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 06:14 AM	#4394
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	I don't think they'll have the numbers to filibuster, and even if they did, I'd be unhappy should they go that route. I think filibustering nominees is despicable. Let the nominee have an up or down vote. You don't like the nominee, win elections. I have no doubt I will not like who he chooses, but the reality is it is his choice and that individual (and the President) should get an up or down vote. I am certain there will be calls to fight back in the same way, and I'm sure the dems will act shocked and as if this had never happened before should it happen. This is not to say the nominee should not be thoroughly examined.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 10:02 AM	#4395
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Wow, when I read that there was going to be a SC opening, I assumed it was RBG. On an entirely different subject - I've heard so many times how atheism is evil because it would leave us with people who are only in it for themselves, with no compassion for other people since, without God, we are just amoral individuals whose only motivation would be self preservation. That doesn't seem to jive with this observation. The more you go to church, the more likely you are to be okay with torture. The group least likely to support torture are people with no religious affiliation. Now, we could go back and forth about how it's not a matter of religious people not having compassion, it's about preserving a way of life that they consider superior. I won't argue against that (too strongly), it's a valid possible explanation for why their percentages would be higher. I'm not pointing to this study as a damnation of religion, per se. I'm more interested in the fact that it seems to debunk the "amoral atheist" assertion. Whatever the reasons for the high acceptance of torture among the practicing religious aside, it's completely counter to the claim of atheists having no reason to have compassion for other human beings. If it were the case, they should support torture in FAR greater numbers as the only reason to not support it is compassion. If it were purely about selfish self preservation, ateists should be all about any-means-necessary. Of course, the rest result does not surprise me in the least. Religion's great achievement is the breeding of "in-group vs. out-group" mentality. It's a useful and understandable survival tool for societies as, lacking other protections, it's a convenient way of ensuring that you are surrounded by people you trust. But the side effect, by necessity of the construct, means that anyone deemed an outsider loses their humanity and is no longer "deserving" of the compassion and caring religions purport to value. And please assume the standard disclaimers that individual attitudes and individual examples of good religious people and/or bad non-religious people are not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about large-scale trends and attitudes, the kind of aggregate effects demonstrated by societal action and surveys like the one posted. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ Last edited by Ghoulish Delight : 05-01-2009 at 10:08 AM.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 10:32 AM	#4396
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	This is complete speculation on my part with no studies or anything to back it up. But if you believe in a deity that tortures (for an eternity) simply out of revenge as many evangelicals do, then I'd have to think that torturing for the actually (potentially) useful purpose gaining information that might save lives may not be as large a step to take.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 02:42 PM	#4397
Tom Valued member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 541	I nominate Alex for the Supreme Court. Where's the suggestion box?
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 02:46 PM	#4398
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I'd accept but I'd just get Borked when my video rental history was leaked.
	Submit to Quotes

05-01-2009, 05:27 PM	#4399
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	I got Borked the other night. And when Cherny does it, does he actually get Bjorked? Wait. What are we talking about exactly?!
	Submit to Quotes