I used to care about the gay marriage issue until I stopped to think about it, and realized just how ridiculous the opposition's arguments are. In the end, it all comes down to homophobia, which is indelibly inked in the foundations of the book of Leviticus. You know, right next to the part where it says to stone your daughter to death for pre-marital sex, and to tear your house down to get rid of mildew.
I used to care about the gay marriage issue until I stopped to think about it, and realized just how ridiculous the opposition's arguments are. In the end, it all comes down to homophobia, which is indelibly inked in the foundations of the book of Leviticus. You know, right next to the part where it says to stone your daughter to death for pre-marital sex, and to tear your house down to get rid of mildew.
My opposition is more along the lines of I just feel that marriage has been defined for so long as between a man and a woman that if you start redefining it where do you stop?
I would prefer to see marriage license scrapped entirely and instead just see it as a basic contract law. That is all it really is. If it is a state license make it secular and call it what it is, a contract between two people.
Posted By: HMTKSteve My opposition is more along the lines of I just feel that marriage has been defined for so long as between a man and a woman that if you start redefining it where do you stop?
I hate that we colorcode and sexcode all of our public figures in the name of progress. If it were true progress, it wouldn't make a difference. I won't vote for a woman or a The male-boss-female-secretary argument also upsets me. It is another perfect example of uncorrelated data being used to prop up a dead point. The whole glass ceiling debate is based on the premise that there is a huge cultural conspiracy in action. We all know that big conspiracies crumble under their own weight. Is it possible that there are other factors in play in the corporate ladder-climbing game?
The glass ceiling does still exist though. Take science for example and get away from bosses/secretaries for a minute. There are women who, as scientists, are just as competent and skilled as men. Yet when they submit a grant or an application for an award they are given lower overall scores and competency scores. Have a man and a woman apply for tenure and even if their research is equal the guy will get picked over the woman. I can think of a few closer examples if you want them. My boss and his wife share a lab doing HIV research and they are at the top of their field. If his wife submits a grant and it gets turned down he'll resubmit it without changing very much of it. The second time around, with his name as the submitter, it almost always gets accepted.
"Even for women lucky enough to obtain an academic job, gender biases can influence the relative resources allocated to faculty, as Nancy Hopkins discovered when she and a senior faculty committee studied this problem at MIT. The data were so convincing that MIT president Charles Vest publicly admitted that discrimination was responsible. For talented women, academia is all too often not a meritocracy." From here: Does gender matter? Also you can read these: Dismissing 'Sexist Opinions' about a woman's place in science Mysterious disappearance of female investigators Nepotism and sexism in peer review Quick note, three of those references are in the journal Nature and you may need an account/subscription for them. If you're interested in them and don't have the subscription/account I can forward the PDF files.
The people who have to make the decision to approve or deny grants shouldn't be given any information about the applicant. If this policy is implemented and there is a significant change in who gets more approvals, then we will know for sure that there was discrimination going on. Once you know that, you can fire all the people who have the job of grant approver and hire new, less biased, people. Of course, you would still keep the policy of withholding information about the applicant from those who make the decision. I'm surprised this isn't the way it's done already.
In Germany you usually go to school from the age of 6 to 18/19 if you want to do collage, if not 16. So at the age of 19 EVERY man in Germany has to go to the army or civilian service, you have to. Since I am a pacifist I am definitely not going to the army. You also get money for the half a year you work. Somehow I still have a problem being forced to do so, I would like to take a Job myself or start studying already.
I now wanted to ask if it's the same in the US, Canada, Australia and other countries. I would also like to here your opinion!
I don't think that service is such a popular idea with these people: Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Roy Blunt, George Allen, Jeb Bush, Paul Wolfowitz, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, and *ahem* GWB. Of this list of scurrilous, black-hearted reprobates, only GWB "served". No one else did. In fact, some like Cheney, had mulitple deferments during wartime. Limbaugh avoided wartime service because he had a boil on his butt.
Now since you're from Germany, you might not know what these jerks have in common. They're all republicans, and they're all what we call "chickenhawks", that is they are happy to send people to war once they're safely old and doughy enough and esconced in enough power that they and their families won't be in harm's way.
These "people" were eligible for the draft. They didn't have to seek service. It's not unfair to say they're all draft dodgers.
Most of those that I listed were granted deferments, like Ashcroft, who received seven deferments to teach business at SW Missouri State. Cheney's last deferment was granted because he was married. Now Rush Limbaugh did have a "medical" excuse - a pilonidal cyst. A boil on his butt. http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm This is not "fit"?
You talk about people being "eligible" or he draft. I do not know the particulars of why these people were not drafted. The fact still remains, if someone can serve the nation better by not being drafted should they still be drafted?
You talk about people being "eligible" or he draft. I do not know the particulars of why these people were not drafted. The fact still remains, if someone can serve the nation better by not being drafted should they still be drafted?
This question only poses a dilemma if it is assumed someone will be drafted into a dangerous combat role. Einstein on the front lines, not such a good idea. However, if you draft him to do some research on rockets, that's serving the country as best he can.
Oh good Lord Steve. . . Now you're being intentionally obtuse. THE. PEOPLE. I. LISTED. WERE. OF. DRAFT. AGE. DURING. WARTIME. THEY. COULD. HAVE. GONE. TO. VIETNAM. LIKE. MANY. OTHER. MEN. THEIR. AGE. BUT. THEY. DID. NOT. GO. THEY AVOIDED, EVADED, AND DODGED THE DRAFT.
Most had deferments like Cheney. The reasons included going to school, teaching school, being married, and working on political campaigns (like Rove). Bob Dornan, a republican I didn't list at first, got a deferment from Korea because he signed up for acting classes. Do you want to propose that maybe he could have served the country better if he was an actor?
THEY WERE TOO CHICKEN TO GO. And there's nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that now they're appealing to misguided patriotism to convince people to do things they weren't willing to do themselves.
As for your statment "The fact still remains, if someone can serve the nation better by not being drafted should they still be drafted?" - (1) It's not a fact, it's a question and (2) the ones I've listed could have much better served their country by dying in a fire.
Wait, wait Steve. I wanna try to predict your next post:
"Draft? What is this draft you speak of? Do you mean it's getting drafty in here? If you're talking about national service, we still don't know that they didn't serve their country better by staying home from an inconvenient foreign trip to this Vietnam place. Why would they go there? I seem to remember something connecting Bill Clinton to Vietnam. Are you trying to say he started some sort of problem over there? Maybe God told those other christian young men they didn't have to go to Vietnam so that they could fight the Fifth Column in secret. . . or maybe they had to stay to fight the cooties hiding in their mommies' apron strings. . . and we never knew their honorable sacrifice. Truly, we owe these fine Americans a debt of gratitude."
As for the whole chicken hawks debate... Saying that military service should somehow be a litmus test for commenting on military matters is bogus. There are plenty of people who never served a day in their life but are very knowledgeable about the military and how it works and there are those who put in twenty years and don't know much of anything.
Besides, that rational would soon lead to, "you can't criticize the president 'cause you've never been president!" The old saying about walking in someone else's shoes does not apply here.
Stephen Hawking has never been in a space craft yet we put much weight behind his scientific theories.
THEY WERE TOO CHICKEN TO GO. And there's nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that now they're appealing to misguided patriotism to convince people to do things they weren't willing to do themselves.
Interesting words from a lawyer. Are you saying that people can not change? Once a thief always a thief?
As for your statment "The fact still remains, if someone can serve the nation better by not being drafted should they still be drafted?" - (1) It's not a fact, it's a question and (2) the ones I've listed could have much better served their country by dying in a fire.
Yes, I misstyped that there and what you have written is accurate, the word should be question not fact.
I never said military service should be a litmus test for "commenting on military matters". They can comment all they want. Their comments may even be well taken.
I said these bozos did not serve during wartime. That is a fact. I criticize them because, in spite of the fact they did not serve, they like to wrap themselves in the flag, beat their chests, and spew a lot of patriotic crap to get other people to do what they were too afraid to do. That is hypocritical. They are hypocrites. That is my argument. That is my point. They may be military geniuses, but they are hypocrites nonetheless.
The "rational" you try to qoute is NOT my argument. Please read what I wrote.
Your statement about Hawking is a non sequitor. It is neither analogous nor relevant to the argument.
You say they were too chicken shit to go and I say people change over time.
WTF does that have to do with anything? They had a chance to go THEN and they didn't go. Fine. I don't have any problem with that in itself. I have a problem when they appeal to misguided patriotism and persuade others to make sacrifices that they did not make themselves. When you're sending people to war, that's hypocritical with extra crunchy "danger of serious physical injury or death" sprinkles on top.
People change over time? The time they engaged in the hypocrisy is the present. They haven't had time to change and even if they did, their rehabilitation is not relevant.
Stephen Hawking has never been in a space craft yet we put much weight behind his scientific theories.
This is so irrelevant it hurts my brain. Really. I couldn't go to sleep last night because this statement is such a non sequitor. I really don't know what you're thinking about, but to make it relevant to what I'm ACTUALY TALKING ABOUT, try this: Sure, Hawking has never been in space, but he HAS NEVER ASKED ANYONE ELSE TO GO.
It has everything to do with your argument. Your argument is along the lines of, "these people were unwilling to do the thing they are now asking others to do." Though Vietnam and Iraq are both actions that involve the military they are not the same.
Similar traits (difference):
Military use to combat a threat (Vietnam -> Communism, Iraq -> Terrorism) Some soldiers say they don't want to go over there (Vietnam -> draft forced people over unless they could enlist in an 'easier' service or get deferments, Iraq -> all volunteers) War based on lies (Vietnam -> Gulf of Tonkin incident was 'made up', Iraq -> ALL the world believed the pre-war intelligence (even Sadam!))
We already agree that past performance is no indicator for future results but how are these people appealing to misguided patriotism?
If one day you walk down the street and avoid looking at a crime problem because you "don't want to get involved" but later, when you get older and are no longer able to get involved, how is it bad if you ask others to get involved?
If I could I would go back into the service and go over to Iraq but I can't due to medical issues.
How is it that the "call to win the war" is a misguided patriotism issue yet the "call to lose the war" is not?
Comments
I would prefer to see marriage license scrapped entirely and instead just see it as a basic contract law. That is all it really is. If it is a state license make it secular and call it what it is, a contract between two people.
"Even for women lucky enough to obtain an academic job, gender biases can influence the relative resources allocated to faculty, as Nancy Hopkins discovered when she and a senior faculty committee studied this problem at MIT. The data were so convincing that MIT president Charles Vest publicly admitted that discrimination was responsible. For talented women, academia is all too often not a meritocracy." From here: Does gender matter?
Also you can read these: Dismissing 'Sexist Opinions' about a woman's place in science
Mysterious disappearance of female investigators
Nepotism and sexism in peer review
Quick note, three of those references are in the journal Nature and you may need an account/subscription for them. If you're interested in them and don't have the subscription/account I can forward the PDF files.
Now since you're from Germany, you might not know what these jerks have in common. They're all republicans, and they're all what we call "chickenhawks", that is they are happy to send people to war once they're safely old and doughy enough and esconced in enough power that they and their families won't be in harm's way.
Most of those that I listed were granted deferments, like Ashcroft, who received seven deferments to teach business at SW Missouri State. Cheney's last deferment was granted because he was married. Now Rush Limbaugh did have a "medical" excuse - a pilonidal cyst. A boil on his butt. http://www.snopes.com/military/limbaugh.htm This is not "fit"?
Most had deferments like Cheney. The reasons included going to school, teaching school, being married, and working on political campaigns (like Rove). Bob Dornan, a republican I didn't list at first, got a deferment from Korea because he signed up for acting classes. Do you want to propose that maybe he could have served the country better if he was an actor?
THEY WERE TOO CHICKEN TO GO. And there's nothing wrong with that, except for the fact that now they're appealing to misguided patriotism to convince people to do things they weren't willing to do themselves.
As for your statment "The fact still remains, if someone can serve the nation better by not being drafted should they still be drafted?" - (1) It's not a fact, it's a question and (2) the ones I've listed could have much better served their country by dying in a fire.
"Draft? What is this draft you speak of? Do you mean it's getting drafty in here? If you're talking about national service, we still don't know that they didn't serve their country better by staying home from an inconvenient foreign trip to this Vietnam place. Why would they go there? I seem to remember something connecting Bill Clinton to Vietnam. Are you trying to say he started some sort of problem over there? Maybe God told those other christian young men they didn't have to go to Vietnam so that they could fight the Fifth Column in secret. . . or maybe they had to stay to fight the cooties hiding in their mommies' apron strings. . . and we never knew their honorable sacrifice. Truly, we owe these fine Americans a debt of gratitude."
As for the whole chicken hawks debate... Saying that military service should somehow be a litmus test for commenting on military matters is bogus. There are plenty of people who never served a day in their life but are very knowledgeable about the military and how it works and there are those who put in twenty years and don't know much of anything.
Besides, that rational would soon lead to, "you can't criticize the president 'cause you've never been president!" The old saying about walking in someone else's shoes does not apply here.
Stephen Hawking has never been in a space craft yet we put much weight behind his scientific theories.
I never said military service should be a litmus test for "commenting on military matters". They can comment all they want. Their comments may even be well taken.
I said these bozos did not serve during wartime. That is a fact. I criticize them because, in spite of the fact they did not serve, they like to wrap themselves in the flag, beat their chests, and spew a lot of patriotic crap to get other people to do what they were too afraid to do. That is hypocritical. They are hypocrites. That is my argument. That is my point. They may be military geniuses, but they are hypocrites nonetheless.
The "rational" you try to qoute is NOT my argument. Please read what I wrote.
Your statement about Hawking is a non sequitor. It is neither analogous nor relevant to the argument.
People change over time? The time they engaged in the hypocrisy is the present. They haven't had time to change and even if they did, their rehabilitation is not relevant. This is so irrelevant it hurts my brain. Really. I couldn't go to sleep last night because this statement is such a non sequitor. I really don't know what you're thinking about, but to make it relevant to what I'm ACTUALY TALKING ABOUT, try this: Sure, Hawking has never been in space, but he HAS NEVER ASKED ANYONE ELSE TO GO.
Similar traits (difference):
Military use to combat a threat (Vietnam -> Communism, Iraq -> Terrorism)
Some soldiers say they don't want to go over there (Vietnam -> draft forced people over unless they could enlist in an 'easier' service or get deferments, Iraq -> all volunteers)
War based on lies (Vietnam -> Gulf of Tonkin incident was 'made up', Iraq -> ALL the world believed the pre-war intelligence (even Sadam!))
We already agree that past performance is no indicator for future results but how are these people appealing to misguided patriotism?
If one day you walk down the street and avoid looking at a crime problem because you "don't want to get involved" but later, when you get older and are no longer able to get involved, how is it bad if you ask others to get involved?
If I could I would go back into the service and go over to Iraq but I can't due to medical issues.
How is it that the "call to win the war" is a misguided patriotism issue yet the "call to lose the war" is not?