| Author | Comment | Digital
Guardian
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
11:45 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | That thing is way too large for me to read at home. | Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
14:22 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | Yes, it is very unfortunate that we had to go through war to bring about the end of slavery. Although the Union's victory was an overall fait accompli in ending slavery, there were still gigantic hurdles to get over.
The south's economy was heavily interwined with slave labor. The need to pay wages crushed many small farmers, which ruined the South's weak postwar economy further.
Also, the vast majority of whites were prejudice against black people in those times. Thus making drastic changes difficult on both sides (in different respects obviously). The general society accepted being prejudice. This is why slavery didn't just up and leave - the deep society ties.
Also along with the idea of social ties, were all the laws which would have to be clarified, or removed. This would shift the culture of America. This also would quickly shift the political side of America.
However, even after the Civil War there were still segregation problems; Jim Cow laws which pretty much kept black people as slaves, as well as sharecropping which was basically slavery in different wording.
Eventually all these hurdles were over-all leapt over. So it wasn't just a BAMM! BOOM! war over, all is good deal. There were still many things to work out once the Civil War ended, but it did set the initiative to end slavery.
EDIT: yeah that thread was taking a while to scroll down to read heh.
[Edited by Billy on 04-Mar-04 23:23] | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
16:25 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Well, the Civil War wasn't actually started over the concept of slavery itself. It was started to keep the United States together, and because the South was also not respected as much as the North. However, it was ONE of the contributing factors.
"So it wasn't just a BAMM! BOOM! war over, all is good deal. There were still many things to work out once the Civil War ended, but it did set the initiative to end slavery."
Yes, you're right.
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 05-Mar-04 01:25] | jessef
Goliath
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
17:16 GMT
Total Posts: 192 | I think that there will never be a gay rights war. There are verry few people that are going to loose signifagant amounts of money over the issue so they will be less likley to care a great deal. | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
18:20 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I noticed something about darwinism...
I am a strong believer in darwinism. The human race is being watered down. Think about it, the dumb people reproduce a heck of alot faster then the smart people. And more often. This will create a rift, and is. If there is to be another civil war, it will be between the smart and the (sorry) dumb. The large stupid group and the smart small group. Thats what I think. | Billy
Ultralisk
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
18:35 GMT
Total Posts: 260 | "Well, the Civil War wasn't actually started over the concept of slavery itself."
Definitely agree, as one of my long posts in the old thread states. :-) | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 4 Mar 2004
20:44 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Hmm, a war between the smart and stupid. I think the stupid outnumber the smart, so there's a number advantage. But the smart people can create bigger and better stuff. That'd be an interesting situation...
They should make a movie about it.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 5 Mar 2004
16:22 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | Just for clarity: Civil war did NOT start because of slavery, it was an issue between the north and south (duh) over states rights vs. national government rights | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 5 Mar 2004
17:43 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "over states rights vs. national government rights"
and the reason the south wanted more states rights was so they could protect their right to hold slaves and try to extend it into further territories since the north had population power. | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 6 Mar 2004
11:22 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | Yup :img13:
No one has posted anything good recently. :sleepyhead_a:
| BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 6 Mar 2004
20:37 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | I hear abortion is a very controversial topic...
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 8 Mar 2004
15:59 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | DISCLAIMER: JUST BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT THE BIBLE IN HERE DOESN'T MEAN I WANT TO START THE RELIGION DEBATE AGAIN. DON'T. ITS OVER. PERIOD. END OF STORY.
O great, here wwe go again. Bullfrog, if people don't stop bringing up nwew topics like this, wwwe'll have a Debate thread(306) before we end [if barrett doesn't stop us first ;) ].
But yes, it is controversial. i myself don't have an opinion on abortion, but the bible clearly states that we wshould leave decisions like that to god. | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 8 Mar 2004
17:27 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | What if the mother's life is in danger? Then what?
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 10 Mar 2004
08:50 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | You all know me, I'm the height of liberal. But I do have a thing against abortion. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs (considering I don't have any), but I am against the taking of life for any purpose. If the mother's life is threatened, THEn abortion is neccessary. But while I do not believe that we need an influx of children in the world, no child should die ecause it's parents can't take care of it. Even in the case of pregnancy from rape, it's not the baby's fault that its father was scum. The child should be born, then adopted. Adoption, not abortion, is my standpoint.
However, I have NO respect for those who bomb abortion cliniocs and threaten pro-choic activists in the name of 'pro-life.' Most of the members of the pro-life movement aren't pro-life at all, they're pro-bigotry and hatred. tey can't stand for a baby to die, but they can drive around with a license plate reading "BOMB THEIR ASS AND TAKE THIER GAS!" | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 10 Mar 2004
15:24 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | i think women should decide. | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 10 Mar 2004
15:44 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | Probably. But you know there are people who just love to talk about such things. And protest...
[Edited by BullFrog on 11-Mar-04 00:44]
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 10 Mar 2004
19:52 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Immmigrants have some of the best genes because our ancestors were adventerous and couldn't take being walked all over in England, or whatever country they came from.
I also hate abortion. If my parents had killed me, or you, we wouldn't be here, and with aboration rates, up, up, up, it's happening to more and more kids. Think about it-what if another Eistein was killed.
As for a War on gay marriage-you're kidding me right? Not even 10% of the world is gay.
As for stupid vs. smart in a war. Take the American Revolution. England=not so smart . . .America=smart. | dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 11 Mar 2004
16:10 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | There will never be a war on gay marriage. There was a war against slavery because there is a large percentage of blacks in this country. Plus, while they do suffer injustice, gays are not slaves. As individual people they have rights, just not as couples. | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 11 Mar 2004
18:34 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | hehe, good points about gay marriage wars, Dysfunction and Calcfreak. | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 12 Mar 2004
22:12 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | Immigrants have the best genes, What kind of logic is that??? Being adventurous doesn't mean you have good genes. In fact, being overly adventurous is pretty STUPID, and your personality/intelligence have a lot more to do with nurture than nature.
Now, examine your statements from a social darwinist point of view, "they couldn't take being walked all over" so they immigrated. That means that your ancestors didn't have the power to fight back against people opressing them, which makes them genetically weak. If you look at it from another point of view, they were to weak to fight back, so they RAN AWAY. If they really did have the "best genes," then they wouldn't need to immigrate, they would be able to make their own existence. Your arguement has no merit from a genetic point of view anyways, because your ancestor being brave/smart/stupid doesn't mean you will follow them.
Historically, very few groups immigrated because they were walked over. Most of them were criminals (debtors) or people looking for more opportunity, mostly just the Puritans were "walked all over," and Puritans actually fled to Netherlands first, but they didn't want their children to have dutch ideals, so they immigrated to the United states.
Finally, if you hate abortion for the reason it might cause a genius to not exist or somebody valuable, you must also hate war of any type, birth control/contraceptives, abstinance, and anything that kills people or prevents birth in any sort of way. What if einstein's parents had used birth control and caught that one sperm that would become einstein or stopped birth, or what if they were killed in an earlier european war? What if Einstein's great-great-great ancestor was eaten by a sabertooth tiger several thousand years ago? How about the millions of soldiers killed in the World Wars, what if one of their children was going to create the idea that would cause world peace and human happiness, cure caner/AIDS/etc? Why don't we all just go procreate like mad to not stop the birth of the genius child that's going to solve the world's problems.
Playing these "What if" games are pointless, because there is no way of knowing.
And you just managed to call every British person in 1776 stupid, and every American person in 1776 smart. How about the loyalist who were in AMERICA but SUPPORTED BRITAIN? In fact, many many United States immigrants before the 1900's were from England, so they must be stupid too. How did a majority of America (the Anglo-Saxons) suddenly get smart by crossing an ocean? | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 14 Mar 2004
10:24 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | Life in England was h*ll for everybdy except the nobles. Everybody knows that. They didn't have relgious freedom-so instead of getting killed, they first went to Holland. They decided that Holland was bad too, so they came to America. Obviously America isn't a super-power for no reason at all.
"Historically, very few groups immigrated because they were walked over."
You're wrong on that. 2/3's of them immigrated for religous freedom to Holland. That took guts. Then, they left again because Holland people treated them like trash. So, they had courage to leave.
"How about the millions of soldiers killed in the World Wars, what if one of their children was going to create the idea that would cause world peace and human happiness, cure caner/AIDS/etc? Why don't we all just go procreate like mad to not stop the birth of the genius child that's going to solve the world's problems."
Yes, but these soliders had a chance to live.
Spiral- The instant YOU became a fetus, a tiny cell, YOU WERE A HUMAN! You had life, you were a living, human! Of course, not very complex, but the instant your dad's sperm met with your mom's egg, you were ALIVE! Killing you is now illegal. Wheter you're a High Schooler or a tiny cell.
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 14-Mar-04 19:25] | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 14 Mar 2004
16:11 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Umm...actaully, just because a fetus has the potential to become a human it isn't actually a person.
A fetus is incapable of supporting itself. So technically it can be called a extension of the mother's body. We have no problem removing an appendix, or a kidney...
Thats right, I'm comparing a fetus to a organ, because that's what it really is. You can't kill something that isn't living, can you?
[Edited by allynfolksjr on 15-Mar-04 01:12] | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 14 Mar 2004
17:09 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Life in England was h*ll for everybdy except the nobles. Everybody knows that. They didn't have relgious freedom-so instead of getting killed, they first went to Holland. They decided that Holland was bad too, so they came to America. Obviously America isn't a super-power for no reason at all."
You're all wrong about life in England. It has hard for the poor, but it was far from "h*ll." Most nobles of this period had already lost a majority of their power, many nobles were in fact more destitute than the wealthy middle class merchants (Britain was primarily a merchant country you know, Napoleon recognized it and tried to break them with the continental system).
The main reasons why the United States is a superpower are:
1) Ideal geographic location, US had a huge area of land that was sparesely populated (indians) and easily subjugated.
2) Expanding on the geography US' its two main borders are the pacific and atlantic ocean, it had little fear of attacks and was removed from many wars.
3) Immigration of many different types of people (many not anglo-saxon)
4) Lots of natural resources, allowing America to become a large industrial power
"You're wrong on that. 2/3's of them immigrated for religous freedom to Holland. That took guts. Then, they left again because Holland people treated them like trash. So, they had courage to leave."
First off, do you have any evidence that courage is transferred by genes, or that these ancestors had the "best genes" or even "strong genes"?
The only group that immigrated to Holland and then to the United States for religious freedom were the Separatists, who later formed the Plymouth Rock colony.
VERY VERY VERY immigrants few were part of the Separatists who immigrated to Holland and then the US, only around 200-300 people. Far from 2/3's of all immigrants. The massachusetts bay colony, which was puritan was around 1000 people, but they never immigrated to holland, nor were they forced out of england, it was as much a commercial venture as religious town. Of the total Puritan immigration population, "It had only involved 20-30,000 immigrants over twenty years." In just the year of 1866, from Germany alone there were 115,000 immigrants.
On the subject of Dutch people treating the english "like trash," I quote "'they hear a strange and uncouth language, and behold the different manners and customs of the people, with their strange customs and attire - all so far differing from their own plain country villages wherein they were bred and had lived so long, that it seemed they had come into a new world.'" It wasn't the Dutch that hated British, it was the overly xenophobic Separatists who forced themselves to immigrate to America.
"Yes, but these soliders had a chance to live."
I wasn't speaking of the soldiers, I was speaking of the infinite (unborn) ancestors of the soldiers that never had a chance to live but could have been Einsteins too. I wasn't arguing to you about whether a fetus has life, that's not my arguement here.
[Edited by spiral on 15-Mar-04 02:10] | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 15 Mar 2004
15:29 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | I hate to get religous-but I will.
You were created in God's image. You are not an accident.
And you make an excellent point: "just because a fetus has the potential to become a human it isn't actually a person." allyn, but every fetus with potential to become something great, like , say, an Eistein, should be able to at least be given that chance.
"The main reasons why the United States is a superpower are:
1) Ideal geographic location, US had a huge area of land that was sparesely populated (indians) and easily subjugated.
2) Expanding on the geography US' its two main borders are the pacific and atlantic ocean, it had little fear of attacks and was removed from many wars.
3) Immigration of many different types of people (many not anglo-saxon)
4) Lots of natural resources, allowing America to become a large industrial power"
Thats BS and you know it. We, America, are surviving because of our democracy. And the fact that we knew we could start over better that the life we had in wherever you're from.
Many people hate the Yank's caue we got what many of you will never have. I take it either Spiral hates his country, or he doesn't live in America.
| Digital
Guardian
Posted: 15 Mar 2004
17:10 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | "Thats BS and you know it. We, America, are surviving because of our democracy. And the fact that we knew we could start over better that the life we had in wherever you're from.
Many people hate the Yank's caue we got what many of you will never have. I take it either Spiral hates his country, or he doesn't live in America."
Spiral loves his contry as much as the next guy. Resorting to personal attacks is the worst thing to do if you want to be taken seriously and also, I challenge you to actually try to prove your point of view. BTW, the Romans did not have a democrasy and are considered one of the greatest nations of all.
PS- Proof read your post next time. Your mispelling is sickning.
PSS- I'm taking (and prolly keeping) a mods roll for this thread.
[Edited by Digital on 16-Mar-04 02:11] | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 15 Mar 2004
18:28 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | "I hate to get religous-but I will."
Sounds like you're threatening people or something.
"Thats BS and you know it. We, America, are surviving because of our democracy. And the fact that we knew we could start over better that the life we had in wherever you're from."
Democracy is why the United States is surviving? A whole lot of good that did during the Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, World War I, World War II, etc...
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 15 Mar 2004
19:44 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Democracy is simply a way of running a country. You don't need it to have a powerful country (Superpower). Look at China, or the former USSR. They were/are communist but yet they're 'superpowers.'
The reason the US is in the position that it's in is really luck, the resources, location and size of the land were what made us what we are today. Plus the fact that we have had some pretty good generals.
And the fact that we are detached from europe, which lets us build pretty much unlimited...
[Edited by allynfolksjr on 16-Mar-04 05:26] | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 15 Mar 2004
22:09 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "You were created in God's image. You are not an accident."
If i was created in God's image, how come males and females are so different? And what about evolution?
"And you make an excellent point: 'just because a fetus has the potential to become a human it isn't actually a person.' allyn, but every fetus with potential to become something great, like , say, an Eistein, should be able to at least be given that chance."
I think dead soldiers and people that died of disease should be given the opportunity to reproduce and possibly create an Einstein (POTENTIA), the number of POTENTIAL children lost through the death of their ancestor who was killed before he/she had the opportunity to reproduce is far greater than abortion's death toll.
"Thats BS and you know it. We, America, are surviving because of our democracy. And the fact that we knew we could start over better that the life we had in wherever you're from."
I think you're the only one that "knows" its BS. It's all the reasons I listed, plus a few more. There are plenty of great powers that were not democratic, British Empire, Soviet Union, China, Germany, Roman Empire. Expanding on bullfrog's arguement of the usefullness of democracy during war, democracy has always been limited during major wars, espionage act (ww1), cancellation of writ of habeus corpus (civil war), japanese internment (ww2), and many times war protesters have not been treated well.
"any people hate the Yank's caue we got what many of you will never have. I take it either Spiral hates his country, or he doesn't live in America."
Yankee's don't even represent all of America. I live in America, it is a fine place in some respects, aweful place in other respects (like how much waste America produces relative to its population size). Americans also don't enjoy the best life in the world, in terms of quality of living, Scandinavian countries are far superior. | dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 16 Mar 2004
18:21 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | I have no problem with birth control or masturbation. I don't believe we need more children in the world. This doesn't come from a religious or bigoted point of view, because I would tend to be for abortion. My parents are pro-choice. So that means I must actually have a rational reason for my views. I spent years developing my ideas on abortion, and I take them very seriously.
If two people have a child they're not ready for, it's their own fault and they have to deal with it. I'm not saying they must raise the child, but they should have it adopted. If a woman is raped, the child should be adopted. It's some perverted bastard's fault, not the child's.
Only one in several million sperm will ever become a child. Only one in a hundred eggs will. But a fetus is GOING to be a kid. It may not be yet, but it WILL be. It has started down that path, and will become one, barring misfortune, or a conscious decision to kill that child. I realize that pro-choice people have good intentions. So do SOME of the pro-lifers. But I am the middle ground, the pro-life person who has actually thought it out, who is liberal, etc. But this is a tough thing. I don't think human morals are really ready to deal with a lot of the issues we've gotten ourselves into. | Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 16 Mar 2004
18:43 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | i think it's funny that pro-choice people are called pro-choice.
what about the baby's choice?
---
-Barrett A | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 16 Mar 2004
18:45 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | "The main reasons why the United States is a superpower are:
1) Ideal geographic location, US had a huge area of land that was sparesely populated (indians) and easily subjugated.
2) Expanding on the geography US' its two main borders are the pacific and atlantic ocean, it had little fear of attacks and was removed from many wars.
3) Immigration of many different types of people (many not anglo-saxon)
4) Lots of natural resources, allowing America to become a large industrial power"
Thats BS and you know it. We, America, are surviving because of our democracy. And the fact that we knew we could start over better that the life we had in wherever you're from.
Many people hate the Yank's caue we got what many of you will never have. I take it either Spiral hates his country, or he doesn't live in America. "
Ummmm, definetly agree w/Calcfreak in that all of spiral's reasons are completely wrong about why we are a superpower. We are surviving because of our democracy.
"PS- Proof read your post next time. Your mispelling is sickning.
PSS- I'm taking (and prolly keeping) a mods roll for this thread."
u should take a little of ur own advice, Digital
1. it's PPS, not PSS, [stands for post script. so for every one after u add another P instead of an S]
2. U mispelled sickening.
"Democracy is simply a way of running a country. You don't need it to have a powerful country (Superpower). Look at China, or the former USSR. They were/are communist but yet they're 'superpowers.'"
China, actually is not in itself a superpower yet; in fact, if it had not been for Nixon visiting China in 1972 and the US help, China would be an impoverished country today. Anyways, you are right that Democracy is just a way of running a country, but its the best way [by that i mean the most fair]. for all you people out there who don't think we have teh best government, we do. and that's because best is only relative to the other governments around us, and trust me, we are the best out of any nation in the world. wwwwwe even help nations rebuild their governments from scratch after years of failure [e.g. Nigeria]
" Expanding on bullfrog's arguement of the usefullness of democracy during war, democracy has always been limited during major wars, espionage act (ww1), cancellation of writ of habeus corpus (civil war), japanese internment (ww2), and many times war protesters have not been treated well."
FYI, the major goal of these wars was to wexpand our ideals of what democracy was, for example: the civil war, while cancelling the writ of habeus corpus laww [according 2 Spiral] solved an even greater democratic issue in slavery. WWI/WWII defended the world against the growing threat of nazism and facism. also, as the saying goes, "Nothign lost, nothing gained" very true.
BBL 4 more posts,
Lunchbox
Q.E.D. | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 16 Mar 2004
18:46 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | b4 i go, i gotta say:
Rofl Barrett, really good point | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 16 Mar 2004
19:11 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | You what you guys are saying is this:
The US is solely in the world position that it is in today because of our form of government?
Spirals reasons are for why the US is the power it is today are right. Democracy encouraged the growth, but isn't the only reason. Just because you have a good form of govt (Democracy isn't perfect, nowhere near perfect), doesn't your country will succeed.
And lunchbox, don't double quote, it reads sloppy. | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 16 Mar 2004
21:52 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | "You what you guys are saying is this:
The US is solely in the world position that it is in today because of our form of government?"
No Allyn, not solely because of our government. but the democracy of the U.S. and its vows of freedom and endwoment of certain unalienable rights is what kind of inspires us to be the greatest nation in the world.
If one looks back into history, all great dictators/bureaucrats have had governmwents that lasted only till they die. Then the government falls into anarchy because no1 can replace them exactly. And empires/monarchies are not that much better because eventually people get smart and revolt. when our founding fathers set forth the constitution, ohhh, 11 score and 7 years and some odd days ago, they purposely made the system so that no one person could stay in an affluential government office for a long time. And the reason was because we didn't want to turn into a dictatorship. Comprennez-vous? :img13: | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 16 Mar 2004
23:00 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Ummmm, definetly agree w/Calcfreak in that all of spiral's reasons are completely wrong about why we are a superpower. We are surviving because of our democracy."
Completely wrong, eh? So what if America had been only a few hundred miles from Europe on a small island. It would have been limited in space (can't grow in population/have a large army), limited in resources (can't supply a large army/low industrial output). Also, being close to Europe, it would have gotten involved in all the European wars in the 1700's and the ones of the 1900's, got itself involved in "entangling alliances." Also, so close to Europe, Great Britain would have been easily to send tons of soldiers and crush any rebellion, the fact it is a small island with a small population would make it even easier. America's geographic location is vital to its success.
"China, actually is not in itself a superpower yet; in fact, if it had not been for Nixon visiting China in 1972 and the US help, China would be an impoverished country today."
What US help? China was able to force the United States army into a standstill in Korea in the 1950's. China is/rapidly becoming a superpower. It has the largest population in the world, and raw manpower can not be discounted as a powerful force, manpower also fuels the rapid industrialization of china with cheap labor. China is gaining more advanced military technology, and is developing their own (with varying rates of success). China has the largest army (not most advanced), 3rd most nukes with missiles capable of launching them all over the world, 3rd nation to put a man in space. It is far more powerful than Russia is, and it's economy is growing beyond any other asian countries.
"and that's because best is only relative to the other governments around us, and trust me, we are the best out of any nation in the world. wwwwwe even help nations rebuild their governments from scratch after years of failure [e.g. Nigeria]"
Maybe instead you should look at Nicaragua or a variety of other countries. Many times there was a leader in place, and the United States purposely funded the opposition guerrillas, and killed the leader in place. This often led to extensive civil strife and civil wars with Guerillas continuously fighting because of United States support and the government fighting back. Nicaragua is an ample example of this, where the Contras were able to keep fighting because of United States assistance. I believe it's per capita GDP is one of the lowest in South America today.
"FYI, the major goal of these wars was to wexpand our ideals of what democracy was, for example: the civil war, while cancelling the writ of habeus corpus law [according 2 Spiral] solved an even greater democratic issue in slavery. WWI/WWII defended the world against the growing threat of nazism and facism."
Actually, there was no fascism or nazism to be stopped in WW1, it was simply a case of Germany not wanting its enemies to get American shipments. Death of Americans and lots of propoganda/Wilson's 14 points made America go to war, democracy did not triumph after WW1.
Also, you COMPLETELY missed the point. We were arguing the BENEFIT of democracy during of war that helps United States survive. We were NOT arguing about the effects of democracy after a war. When have Americans had INCREASED democracy during a that helped the war (besides the lack of real government in American revolution)?
By the way, when in wars, people who protest against the war are arrested and held (such as by espionage act/no habeus corpus). A suspension Habeus Corpus allows for a person to be held for charges indefinately (prevents a quick and speedy trial), and arresting people who protest the war (in WW1/Civil War) also violates the 1rst amendment. In other words, these lapses of democracy are contrary to the structure the United States was built on.
"If one looks back into history, all great dictators/bureaucrats have had governmwents that lasted only till they die. Then the government falls into anarchy because no1 can replace them exactly. And empires/monarchies are not that much better because eventually people get smart and revolt."
That is not true, the Roman empire expanded for centuries, Britain was the world power for around 200 years (when was the British Empire in anarchy?). By the way, a revolt by the people means nothing, a lot of revolts fail, and these people are magically "getting smart," most of the time it's they are swayed by enticing promises and propoganda. And if revolts only occur in Empires/Monarchies, the United States is one, every heard of SLAVE REVOLTS?
"when our founding fathers set forth the constitution, ohhh, 11 score and 7 years and some odd days ago, they purposely made the system so that no one person could stay in an affluential government office for a long time. And the reason was because we didn't want to turn into a dictatorship."
AFFLUENTIAL is NOT a word. If you follow the root word, affluent, it means WEALTHY. The word I believe you mean is INFLUENTIAL. The only government office that can not be served for all of one's life is the President. Senators/Representatives can serve from the minimum age up to their death. Also, the original constitution had no limit on Presidential terms. While a president would still have to run for reelection, there would be no time limit he could be in office (with the passage of the 22nd amendment, the maximum is 9 years).
btw, the United States isn't a democracy, it is a republic.
"Comprennez-vous?"
First off, only 1 n, second, adding a phrase of foreign language and a smirk at the end of an arguement don't increase the arguements effectiveness. Ni Dong Wo Shuo De Hua Ma? or ¿Entiendes? or Lei Zhi Mu Zhi Ah?
[Edited by spiral on 17-Mar-04 08:13] | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 17 Mar 2004
15:53 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | My First point to everyone: Stop yelling. I kind of get that impression when you talk in caps. I know I sometimes do, but lets try to understand each others views, because everyone here is making great points.
Second Point: Well, if the mod decides to change my views while I post, I mind, but other than that, you go right ahead Digital.
Now, lets start.
"I think dead soldiers and people that died of disease should be given the opportunity to reproduce and possibly create an Einstein . . . the number of POTENTIAL children lost through the death of their ancestor who was killed before he had the opportunity to reproduce is far greater than abortion's death toll."
Look. Unless a women had sex recently before or during the War, and she then decided to fight, now one except grown adults would be killed.
An Egg is this= A cell.
A sperm is this= A tiny little thing that is not relativley important except for the DNA it carries, considering that no Y can live without it's X and that the Y simply has Textosterone in, and nothing else really. If these sperm were important, than why would you have millions of them. (Assuming most people here are men.)
A Sperm+ and Egg has enough DNA content to produce a living organism.
Now, I beleive that if the woman wishes to kill her baby, that they should let the kid go up for adoption. Aborting your baby just so don't have to go through the pain of childbirth is selfish. Life is good, and everyone should experience this.
********Just a question for those who agree with abortion . . *******
Would you agree with killing a baby after it was born? Well, why not you say? There is a form of abortion where ripping off the child's arms and legs is done minutes before the child is born to kill it. Why not wait a few more minutes so that it's out of the womb? Why not wait a month before you kill it, it's just a dumb kid you don't want anyway.
(Note, everything I just said is not what I believe in, and no duh, I was being sarcastic. Of course it's horrible to kill babies , whetere their one month old or 10, but you see, where does the madness stop?)
****************************************************************
Answer me that.
P.S. There are so many people out there willingly to adopt babies-it's older kids that they don't want. So many people who can't have children would like to adopt. Why not go through labor, give that baby a chance and then let a loving family adopt them? Some people wait 1-2 years before they adopt a baby child. And trust me, these are some of the best loving families you could want.
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 18-Mar-04 00:56] | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 17 Mar 2004
18:45 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | "Sounds like you're threatening people or something."
No-but most people hate it when I mention relgion . . .I can't threaten people or my posts might get edited and deleted and my point not seen my viewers. | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 17 Mar 2004
18:47 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | I actually don't support 3rd term abortion (Which was what calcfreak was describing), unless the mothers life in in danger.
I am interested, however, what country/state allows 'ripping off the child's arms and legs'?
And the demand of childen to be adopted isn't that great, why do you think US familys are going to aisa to adopt? Adoption isn't a great answer, and what if the child isn't adopted? Then what? | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 17 Mar 2004
18:49 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | The child IS adopted though, hundreds of families want the child.
And if that doesn't work-just don't have sex right and left; control yourself. | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 17 Mar 2004
21:05 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | People just don't want to take responsibility for their actions. They sue McDonald's because they spilled hot coffee on themselves. (Oh my heck, you want it cold?!) Some people sue McDonald's because they're fat and the ads are just "too enticing." I even heard of someone who sued McDonald's because their kid was fat!
Abortion is a way for some people to get out of the consequences of their night of fun. I think if people didn't abuse it like that, it wouldn't be such a controversy.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | spiral
Wraith
Posted: 17 Mar 2004
23:50 GMT
Total Posts: 958 | "Look. Unless a women had sex recently before or during the War, and she then decided to fight, now one except grown adults would be killed."
You don't understand, it's the same as the arguement that a child aborted COULD be the next Einstein, the people who died in the war COULD have sired the next Einstein. And when one person dies, it's not just them that dies, infinite future generations of people die at the same time.
"A sperm is this= A tiny little thing that is not relativley important except for the DNA it carries, considering that no Y can live without it's X and that the Y simply has Textosterone in, and nothing else really. If these sperm were important, than why would you have millions of them."
the Y chromosome doesn't have tesosterone in it. Testosterone is a hormone, the chromosomes are made of tightly wound DNA. The Y chromosome merely has teh genetic code that sets instructions to create a male. The Y chromosome is not necessary for a child. Males are XY chromosomes, and can pass their X chromosome in sperm (creates girl) or pass their Y (creates a guy).
"Would you agree with killing a baby after it was born? Well, why not you say? There is a form of abortion where ripping off the child's arms and legs is done minutes before the child is born to kill it. Why not wait a few more minutes so that it's out of the womb? Why not wait a month before you kill it, it's just a dumb kid you don't want anyway."
I think that abortion is not a pretty thing, and is as Bullfrog said priamrily for people who don't want to take responsibility. However, I don't believe just because I don't fully approve of it, that I have the right to limit other people's freedom. As voltaire said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Except this is an action, not a speech.
"There are so many people out there willingly to adopt babies-it's older kids that they don't want. So many people who can't have children would like to adopt. Why not go through labor, give that baby a chance and then let a loving family adopt them? Some people wait 1-2 years before they adopt a baby child. And trust me, these are some of the best loving families you could want."
This is a far to rosy view of adoption. Adoption requires so much paperwork, verification (for a good reason), but it is far from easy. What's to say that your child won't grow too old for the people out there to want to adopt. Further, these adopted parents may be very loving, but they are not a kid's biological parents, and can never be. How would you feel if you found out tomorrow that your parents didn't want you and sent you off to be adopted, but you lived however many years not knowing it?
And i really don't see how some people can have more than 4 kids, it is really just too many... | dysfunction
Goliath
Posted: 18 Mar 2004
08:46 GMT
Total Posts: 122 | >How would you feel if you found out tomorrow that your parents didn't want you and sent you off to be adopted, but you lived however many years not knowing it?
Wouldn't that be better than being dead? Plus, you know that your adopted parents DID want you.
>Adoption requires so much paperwork, verification (for a good reason), but it is far from easy.
Yes, but wouldn't a miserable life in an orphanage be better than no life at all? Again, I don't believ we need more kids in the world. But if you conceive a child when you're not ready, it's either both parents' fault or a rapists' fault, not the chld's fault. You can't kill a child because it's parents made a mistake. | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 18 Mar 2004
16:54 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | "You can't kill a child because it's parents made a mistake."
Wow, Dysfunction, so nicely put. I back that statement 100%.
Spiral-What about the Babies freedoms? You say that adoption an ugly thing, so why support it? I know you want to give that woman her "freedoms", but no where in the constitution does it say that " a mother may kill her own son/daughter", so it's not one of her freedoms.
" China is/rapidly becoming a superpower."
China will never become a superpower unless it has a democracy. Their people live horrbily there. Why do you think over a million immigrants from China have risked their lives fleeing to the United States of America? Because even the Chinese people who live there know it's horrible.
P.S. My last comment is that I love debating things at this site. Thats the reason I now am checking it everyday. I think this debate is a wonderful idea. I respect all of you for posting your opinions, and very grateful for such enthusiactic opponents. Lets keep these debates at Calcgames going!
[Edited by calculatorfreakCG on 19-Mar-04 01:57] | Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 18 Mar 2004
18:39 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | I think i'm gonna quit arguing w/ spiral, because no matter what i say, Spiral always rips it to little tiny itty bitty shreds and leaves them in the daust, even if what i say has some merit.
"Say no to abortion! And say no to gay marriage! Do you want to have to expalin to a young child why johnny has two mommies?"
roflmfao. funnee stuf!
BtTW, how do you get that quote at bottom?
| Barrett
Administrator
Posted: 18 Mar 2004
18:48 GMT
Total Posts: 1676 | top right of the forum page... "Edit Profile"..... make a "signature".... there are some other options as well.
---
-Barrett A | allynfolksjr
Administrator
Posted: 18 Mar 2004
19:13 GMT
Total Posts: 1892 | Ok, where does it say "You must be a republic to be a superpower"? Because China is, and may soon, if not already rival the US as the most powerful country in the world.
The Chinese illegally immigrate? Over a million, you say? I'm calling your bluff, prove it. And it has to be recent immigration, not in the early 1900's.
And just because the Constitution doesn't say anything about aborting is a really bad point. If I remember correctly, there wasn't abortion back when it was written. How can you address something that didn't exist?
BTW, The 'Constitution' is capitalized. | BullFrog
Wraith
Posted: 18 Mar 2004
21:04 GMT
Total Posts: 623 | "China will never become a superpower unless it has a democracy. Their people live horrbily there. Why do you think over a million immigrants from China have risked their lives fleeing to the United States of America? Because even the Chinese people who live there know it's horrible."
China has the world's largest standing army. That's LARGEST. If they're not a superpower now, they're well on their way to becoming one.
Millions of Chinese immigrants were from the earlier years, not now. Like, late 1800's to early 1900's. The living conditions may be horrible there, but many don't really have the resources to immigrate.
---
"Men are not prisoners of fate, but only prisoners of their own minds." -Franklin D. Roosevelt | calculatorfreakCG
Wraith
Posted: 19 Mar 2004
12:45 GMT
Total Posts: 739 | "I think i'm gonna quit arguing w/ spiral, because no matter what i say, Spiral always rips it to little tiny itty bitty shreds and leaves them in the daust, even if what i say has some merit."
No kidding. I agree.
"The Chinese illegally immigrate? Over a million, you say? I'm calling your bluff, prove it. And it has to be recent immigration, not in the early 1900's."
Do you have any chinese people in your class? I do. One girl in my class said her parents immigrated recently, and then her brothers went over to here, then her, and then her grandparents. Why do you think there are chinese people at your school-and more than 1/3 of them immigrated recently?
"China has the world's largest standing army. That's LARGEST."
Sure they do. And I know that. But is there army full of volunteers, smart people like ours?
". If they're not a superpower now, they're well on their way to becoming one."
They cannot become one unless those people are free.
| Lunchbox
Carrier
Posted: 19 Mar 2004
13:42 GMT
Total Posts: 2007 | Thank You Calcfreak! You took the words right out of my mouth, but watch spiral rip on your post immediatly after seeing it. :img22: Especially about the "China has the world's largest standing army. That's LARGEST." quote. Have you guys ever heard the saying "Quality, not quantity"? Totallly applies to the situation at hand. While China may have the largest army, the U.S. has the best trained army in the world. The skills and armament that the army/navy/air force/marines of the U.S. has surpasses that of China exponentially. :eek_a: Yes, that's right, what i'm saying is that even though China has "the world's largest standing army. That's LARGEST.", that doesn't mean it is the best. The U.S. has absolutely, without any doubt, the best army in the world. that's BEST. :img10:
EDIT: BTW, thanks on the tip about signatures B
[Edited by Lunchbox on 19-Mar-04 22:43] | Digital
Guardian
Posted: 19 Mar 2004
15:18 GMT
Total Posts: 1051 | Discalaimer of sorts:I know this was before all of our time and please pardom my ignorance of which war it was, this is just a guess.
In WWII or one of the ones after it, there was a time while we adapted the island hopping warefare, that there were several incidences when only a handfull (2 to 20) Chinese soldiers kept the US military at bay for more than a day. They just had gernades and riffles, we had that and more than 10x the man power, but still couldn't take them out. It is not the technology or weapons that makes one superior, but the dedication and will power of the individual who wields them. |
|
