291–300 of 317 posts
> Four of the past seven governors of Illinois have gone to prison for corruption, and to my knowledge no one has demanded that Illinois schools be shut down or its highways closed. Brilliant.
yes, but we have demanded that the funds no longer be transferred through those governors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two points: I still perceive India as a "shithole". Whereas China's elite has used its newfound wealth to finance widespread infrastructure and especially sanitation projects, India's has not, not on a mass countrywide scale. Fallen prey to coordination problems is the best gloss you can put on it but I still find it scandalous. Second, South America's recent progress has mostly been under governments of the left, us…
It's easy to overstate how leftist many of the governments there are. Outside of Venezuela (and Cuba), I wouldn't consider anything they have done surprisingly or inappropriately leftist. Photo-ops with Chavez or Castro are meant more for domestic PR than anything policy related.
Argentina, for example, has nationalized the oil companies (YPF), and price-fixes and subsidies most utilities, and has started price-fixing food.
Uruguay has also on a lower scale tried price fixing.
Both, plus Brazil, have extensive welfare programs (with the dual purpose of capturing vote for the ruling parties of course).
Such things are typically characterized as leftist.
Sources: I'm Uruguayan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not worth debating over, but there's clearly a difference in category between drug laws, war policy, and philanthropic aid programs. Opting out of war funding sounds great, but I'm not sure how that would work. As far as drugs, it's harder but we could make drug prohibitions state laws and let people move or make changes at the state level. Philanthropic aid programs, on the other hand, are clearly optional (eve…
I don't understand what this supposed difference is. In what way are government aid programs optional that war and drug laws aren't? Why does it make sense to allow people to opt out of one but not another? You say "clearly", but it's definitely not, at least not to me.
My objections to opting out of war policy and drug laws were practical. Nations must be able to fight wars. Drugs must be regulated (if only to establish civil liability). I don't see how an individual can practically opt out of at least funding those things. Humanitarian aid, however noble, is not essential like war policy, and it's not inevitable like drug regulations. I can go into more detail, but it's fairly off topic.
I am interested in finding ways to let people live their consciences in the face of unjust wars and laws. One way is to make more decisions at the local level and then people can move if they get really fed up with policies. This doesn't work with war policy, but it can certainly work with drug prohibitions and humanitarian aid programs. I don't see why the city of Tampa Bay couldn't legalize marijuana and send millions of condoms to southern Asia or southern Africa.
It's an excellent piece. I'll admit to being a bit confused by the assertion, however: > "letting children die now so they don’t starve later—doesn’t actually work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too." I spent five months in Kenya, and…
Parents want to have X kids. If Y kids are likely to die, parents must have at least X+Y kids to get what they want. That, combined with a general lack of knowledge/access about/to contraceptives means population growth. Make it so that kids stop dying and parents stop having the Y+ part of the equation. Educate and give access to contraceptives and you complete the puzzle. Contrary to popular belief, women don't want to spend their entire lives being pregnant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I'll add this then to your experiences: Having my sons was the best thing that ever happened in my life, and I can think of no event in the future that could ever compare to the joy and pride that I feel every day that is a direct result of their existence. Children are life changing, that much is true; in every way. I wouldn't change a thing though. They are a net benefit to the world already based on the feel…
I should point out that, as I said in the other thread, I'm Catholic. And I didn't just inherit my Catholicism, I worked hard to find it. And I examined many of its precepts and tenets (including birth control), and found them each to be reliable and founded on a mountain of logic built on a kernel of faith. So they're my own beliefs. Not inherited, and not held blindly. That's why I can't support the inclusion of co…
The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to prevent conception and waiting until Tuesday to have sex. The church condemns one yet supports the other; completely inconsistent. The only way to have a consistent opinion on the topic is to decree that all forms of martial interaction approaching sex end with insemination - a completely ludicrous idea (regardless of whether or not you support that), to be honest.
The church is causing real damage with this doctrine, particularly with regards to AIDS in Africa. With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward, to be honest. I was curious as to your reaction in that event.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to disagree. Ideals informed from religions cannot be proven (they could, actually, if the deities cooperated, but, while they don't, there can't be proof) but decisions informed by scientific knowledge can and that's a very important difference.
That's unrelated to my point. I'm not talking about science or religion. I'm saying that everyone holds some unprovable views about how society works best, and they cast their votes based on these ideals, whether they're religious or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should point out that, as I said in the other thread, I'm Catholic. And I didn't just inherit my Catholicism, I worked hard to find it. And I examined many of its precepts and tenets (including birth control), and found them each to be reliable and founded on a mountain of logic built on a kernel of faith. So they're my own beliefs. Not inherited, and not held blindly. That's why I can't support the inclusion of co…
I don't think you are an "enemy" of anyone, however I do think that the Catholic church's position here isn't very logical. The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to pr…
There are many "liberal Catholics" in the world, and organizations dedicated to "modernizing" Catholic doctrine. They're pushing and hoping for things like ordaining women as priests, allowing abortions, gay marriage, etc. [1]
But they'll never succeed. Doctrines can't be changed because they're inherently immutable. [2] So by definition it's impossible.
Yes, there will always be polls trying to demonstrate that doctrinal change is possible given a strong enough public voice [3], but this is and will always be impossible. All those polls do (and I would argue are meant to do) are make people think they're on the right track with their dissent, and that it's not really apostasy, just a harmless opinion.
[1]: http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/dissorg.htm
[2]: http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change...
[3]: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/11/16/2943221/rise-pr...
EDIT: more idiomatic formatting of sources
It's an excellent piece. I'll admit to being a bit confused by the assertion, however: > "letting children die now so they don’t starve later—doesn’t actually work, thank goodness. It may be counterintuitive, but the countries with the most deaths have among the fastest-growing populations in the world. This is because the women in these countries tend to have the most births, too." I spent five months in Kenya, and…
No offense, but did you read the article? The point is that when children stop dying, parents stop having so many children. When the mortality rate goes down, the birth rate does too. Parents want to have X kids. If Y kids are likely to die, parents must have at least X+Y kids to get what they want. That, combined with a general lack of knowledge/access about/to contraceptives means population growth. Make it so that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you are an "enemy" of anyone, however I do think that the Catholic church's position here isn't very logical. The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to pr…
> With Pope Francis reviewing and moderating a lot of traditional doctrine, and with a large group of those within the church opposed to it (particularity those from the first world), I could see this edict being "modified" going forward There are many "liberal Catholics" in the world, and organizations dedicated to "modernizing" Catholic doctrine. They're pushing and hoping for things like ordaining women as priests…
If doctrines couldn't change, we wouldn't need to have dogmas (which are doctrines which have been infallibly proclaimed and which, therefore, are, in principle, immutable.)
More importantly than the theoretical questions, church teachings do change, even if that means retrospectively reinterpreting doctrine to change how it is taught while maintaining the pretense of consistency, or reinterpreting something that was previously viewed as doctrinal as something other than doctrine.
This is particularly visible in the area of, say, "when a morally cognizable human exists in pregnancy", a relatively important matter on which Church teaching has changed radically over its history.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should point out that, as I said in the other thread, I'm Catholic. And I didn't just inherit my Catholicism, I worked hard to find it. And I examined many of its precepts and tenets (including birth control), and found them each to be reliable and founded on a mountain of logic built on a kernel of faith. So they're my own beliefs. Not inherited, and not held blindly. That's why I can't support the inclusion of co…
I don't think you are an "enemy" of anyone, however I do think that the Catholic church's position here isn't very logical. The church does now support family planning by using a woman's cycle, which in doing so immediately counters the general idea that sex should "always be about procreation". This action renders the position on contraception completely illogical. There is no difference between using a condom to pr…
The position on contraception is not based on the idea that "sex should 'always be about procreation'."
Whether it is logical or not may be debatable, but claiming that an element contradicts a proposition that is outside of the position to start with isn't a way of showing that.