What would be more offensive? To burn the American Flag or to burn the bible?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 24 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]324353[/snapback]</div>

You don't read language very well. If there is something so holy about the Marines that they can't be used in humor, I missed that in all my military training. Hell, I even made a little fun of the Air Force and Navy, both of which I belonged to. Did you ever serve? Nothing was there to mock the Marines. The point of the "joke" (I love having to explain these things) is that the flags flown by commercial sites simply for the patriotism-magnet offend me. Whoever flies the biggest flag is the greatest American. I'll go deeper if you need me to. The Marines were included because they revere the flag and seeing such giants in the air might cause them sensory overload. (That was the joke.)

I implied a sense of harm to you? You must be more paranoid than the average CC! What conservatives conserve, that has been shoved down our throats the last six years by the "compassionate" sect, is a sense of knowing it all, despite the facts. They have driven this country into an eternal war, wreaked the economy so that our children will be in debt unto the 10th generation! They ship our work overseas, strip our fighting soldiers of benefits, buy embroidered handtowels for the troops (to run up the cost) and never have enough money to outfit them in good body armor or protected vehicles. They send untrained, inexperienced hacks to Iraq to get things working and wind up bleeding away billions in unaccounted squandering. They send other cronies to head up departments they have no business even working in.

I could go on for an hour but you probably have a weasel-out for anything I'm likely to say. You never even sincerely apologized for your snotty remarks about how you think I view Marines. Just an "explanation" of how I had stated things badly and led you astray. With the CCs, its always the other person who is wrong. You might get a free ride on your readerless blog but not here. I can't stand much more of what I value being "conserved" by you guys.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 24 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]324366[/snapback]</div>

Hear hear! Whatever happened to the eye on the bottom line that old conservatives had? The competence?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 24 2006, 12:29 PM) [snapback]324353[/snapback]</div>

Interesting. What are your positions on gay marriage and abortion?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wilco @ Sep 24 2006, 01:36 PM) [snapback]324373[/snapback]</div>

Roger, Wilco! (I always wanted to say that!)

Here the country is losing its sons and daughters, our wealth is vanishing, we are being spied on by our own leaders and these dolts think the important issues are whether a couple of guys fall in love with one another or a woman can abort a fertilized egg. That's keeping an eye on priorities.

And you can bet his views on "economic justice" rest heavily on keeping everything one can earn, cheat or steal while giving nothing to support the country they profess to love so deeply. Duke Cunningham from right next door to me is their poster child.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 24 2006, 02:23 PM) [snapback]324395[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, that's why I alluded to these guys being the new useful idiots (in the UN Speeches thread) - they're being played like fiddles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wilco @ Sep 24 2006, 01:36 PM) [snapback]324373[/snapback]</div>

On "Gay Marriage":
I support a change in civil law to allow gay people to enjoy all the benefits society gives to married couples, including tax breaks, inheritance laws, etc., without forcing private religious institutions to recognize the unions if institutions desire not to; I think in order to do this, a new category of civil union would have to be created with both "gay marriage" and "straight marriage" as components of the civil union. The state could use its regulatory power to compel employers to recognize any of the civil unions for the purposes of health insurance and other benefits, and a partner in either type of union would have the presumption of being the next of kin for medical decisions, the default heir, visitation rights in hospitals (including religious or private hospitals), etc. Any employer already subject to the EEOC laws would have to recognize gay unions, while those private, religious or other organizations already allowed to be discriminatory (churches, Congress, etc.) could remain so in this area as well.

I'm sure that position will make no one happy, but there it is.

On "Abortion":
I'm opposed to abortion after the genetically distinct human tissue becomes a person, and I have to admit I have some things to still work out in this regard. My current leaning is toward looking at brain activity as the indicator that the human fetus is a person, and worthy of state protection. I just don't know when brain activity really starts, so I can't give you a "week" of gestation (this is a fact that is known ... I just have not done any research lately ... I think its at the end of the first trimester). My discomfort with this issue is that I value life, and so new information could easily change my view. But right now, I would be in the camp of allowing abortions before brain activity ... during the first trimester, at which point the human fetus becomes a "person" and killing it should be done only when no alternative to the health of the mother exists.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 24 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]324366[/snapback]</div>

I isolated your comment about my reading comprehension and your clarification of the language you used and have the "<snip>" symbol in there where other content was.

From the on-line dictionary at http://www.answers.com/conserve&r=67

con·serve (kən-sûrv')
1. a. To protect from loss or harm; preserve: calls to conserve our national heritage in the face of bewildering change.
b. To use carefully or sparingly, avoiding waste: kept the thermostat lower to conserve energy.
2. To keep (a quantity) constant through physical or chemical reactions or evolutionary changes.
3. To preserve (fruits) with sugar.

I fail to see how the statement "What you conserve should be eliminated as soon as possible ..." is the proper use of "conserve" in any definition of the word. I asked for clarification because the word "eliminated" has several connotations, one of which means to kill.

It is as awkward a phrase as your statement that you buy meals for servicemen in resturants you go to anonymously, but at least in that case I was able to make out that you are not in the resturant anonymously but rather PAY anonymously. We all struggle with grammar, but I tend to expect more from people who describe themselves as accomplished, as you do. Especially teachers, as they should be able to form complete sentences that actually make sense.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 24 2006, 01:05 PM) [snapback]324366[/snapback]</div>

I didn't apologize because I don't feel I did anything wrong. I called you on an outrageous comment, presented without qualification, and asked you for verification. And then I noted your disrespect of the marines. You responded that it was "a joke", and called my remark "stupid". You didn't say your feelings were hurt. If I hurt your feelings, then I apologize for doing that. That is not my intention. But what I said was appropriate given the circumstance and the debate nature of this forum.

You have clarified your views pretty well in the posts to follow. Conservatives are, by virtue of being a conservative, and I am specifically I guess, "dolts", "cheats" who "steal", "paranoid", "know-it-alls", issue "quick moral judgements" with "instant condemnation", "love to orate in God's voice", are "hair triggered to villify", give "hateful unthinking responses" and have a "mummified sense of humor". Want to add to that list? Oh, and let's remember, all of that came from this response to something you posted:

Now, does your list of attack words sound like "proportional response" to you? Have I used any insulting words in describing you or your beliefs, other than pointing out that, in my opinion, you appear to be a partisan who confuses "debate" and "argument" (and to reiterate, I said it was my opinion)? Did I attack your personal beliefs, lump you in with other groups, call you a thief, dolt, judgemental, or anything of the sort? Did I try to get a rise out of you by anything close to your "insulting" of my blog's lack of responses?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 24 2006, 10:46 PM) [snapback]324549[/snapback]</div>

Thanks, that was a thoughtful response.

 

It was late whan I made that last post and I was too tired to say much more. Even though you and I are theoretically on different sides of the political fence, there is much we agree on. The current level of divisive politics going on right now is hurting intelligent debate. Everything is red vs. blue, when in reality it's all shades of purple.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 24 2006, 11:46 PM) [snapback]324557[/snapback]</div>

Well, you got me there. You are absolutely right: "anonymously" was misplaced. It probably caused a real breakdown of understanding. Now folks can be clear as to whether I enter a restaurant without giving my real name or pay for meals and then slip out. You, at least, were able to work this puzzle out. Bravo! I'll work harder to become more "accomplished" in the future. My students fall like flies each semester due to my lack of clarity.

As to my use of the word "conserve," I always know I am on the right track when people start throwing the dictionary at me. You'd never guess it, but I have a bachelor's degree in linguistics and have learned that language works on a much deeper level: the dictionary is just one clue as to meaning. If you feel the word "conserve" has been used, by those who work under its banner, in only those definitions, you are being deliberately misleading. Words have import way beyond these limitations.

Consider the South in the old days: they didn't segragate the races, they provided "separate but equal" treatment. Define these three words using any book you'd like and you will not arrive at what they really meant to those who had to live under them. Or think of "pro life" or "pro choice." Anything in your big book mention why folks will get so upset about the definitions of these three words? Now look closely at "Compassionate Conservative." Why does that term make so many people gag? We're all trying to be compassionate and conserve the goodness of life. But put those words together.......

One of your definitions says "kept the thermostat lower to conserve energy" and "To keep (a quantity) constant through physical or chemical reactions or evolutionary changes," as "conserve" meanings. How come the government is so against this in the matter of global warming? The ice off the world is not being conserved very well, is it? But let's worry about gay marriage, the world's major calamity.

I'm using conservative in a pejoritive manner (in case you missed this. Much like your side likes to use "liberal" as a swear word and refers to the "Democrat" Party as a code.) I tried to point out a number of freedoms we used to have that have been "conserved" right out of existence. I mentioned the national debt that was "conserved" from a massive surplus to the biggest deficit in the history of the republic. How does "To protect from loss or harm; preserve," fit into that?

One definition I might agree with is "To preserve (fruits) with sugar." Republicans like to refer to us as the party of fruits and nuts. But it appears like the right will do anything to preserve the nuts running this country into the ground from being replaced.

Yet you prefer to find fault with my grammar. You see, I'm showing how "Conservatives" really "conserve." I'm giving it a new definition, not found in your Funk and Wagnalls, that I think is fairly well understood by those being "conserved" upon. (By the way, the spell-check on this forum is down so forgive me if I don't treat this as a formal paper but rather as a spoken monologue, with the random grammar or spelling lapse.)

Explain, in as much detail as you can muster, my disrespect of the Marines in my remarks. (Which you spell with a small "m" again. Check your dictionary once more. The army, navy, coast guard, air force and marines are spelled with a CAPITAL LETTER when talking about the named service. Thus: Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Air Force, Marines. I was able to learn from you but you have a hard time reciprocating. If I were as sensitive as you about words, I'd take THIS as disrespect, not simply a misspelling.)

In my little story, I had the Marines stopping and coming to attention in front of one of those circus-sized flags flown by super-patriot-merchants. (This post was about flags, not Marines, in case you forgot.) Again, you got me with your astute question: it didn't really happen. Sorry to all those I fooled! I could have used the Air Force or Navy as an example but I think of the Marines as being even more gung-ho (where'd that term come from?) than the sister branches I served in. It was actually my salute to them that they are so. (You didn't mention where you served.)

Have you ever brought your car to a halt, gotten out, and snapped to a salute at the end of the day when the flag is being lowered on a military base? I have, dozens of times, and so has anybody who was a service member. People with military time will resonate with my remarks. Those who had "higher priorities," as Cheney had, will find the concept strange. So, in my little bash at the merchants, I have Marines doing what they do everywhere: show respect for the flag, but in this case one bigger than even that flown over Marine headquarters. I suggested a confusion among them at seeing such an object. This is "outrageous?" This is "disrespect?" I should have to "return my liberty" for saying this? Only in China! (When you go to a movie, does somebody have to explain everything that went on in such detail?)

Your instant caustic remarks, which I guess you think should go unanswered in this Republican-dominated country, are what has caused so much writing. You need to develop a sense of humor or at least tolerance. I didn't say you were stupid, just your remarks and personal attack. But people who speak with the voice of God are a little loose about instant judgements. "Have I used any insulting words...?" you ask. Yes. You said I had no respect for a proud branch of our military.

I feel like I'm in one of those Rocky Balboa movies where a beautiful young woman now parades around the ring carrying a sign telling what round it is. I just swizzled my mouth out with water and feel very strong. Hey, there's that bell again!

 

By the way, along the lines of civilized debate and not snap judgements:

I pretty well agree with and respect your positions on gay marriage and abortion. They are surprising to me.

I just don't think these are world-class subjects (considering what is going on in the world.)

And, since you didn't mention your social economic ideas, I am guilty of my own snap judgement in ascribing to you the concepts most CCs voice. Sorry. I'll wait for this on some other thread.

 

Why, why, why is it either us or them; black or white; right or wrong; liberal or conservative?

The spectrum of human existence and experience is so broad and grand that it's impossible to set up an either/or choice and expect it to be anything but a drastic oversimplification.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Sep 25 2006, 12:32 PM) [snapback]324820[/snapback]</div>

Uh, OK....

It seems to me that making a choice is, by definition, making an either/or decision. Either I'll eat dinner or I won't. Choices are the way we work our way through a sea of confusion. Quite often, as in war, it is either us or them. He who hesitates...... Nor do I buy into moral equivalence. There is right and wrong in this world and to merge them is inviting chaos. (And I say this as a non-religious bloke.)

In my last two posts, I was very anti some ideas and, later, very pro some others. How else does one carry on a debate? I found ground that I couldn't stand on and other that seemed pretty solid. Isn't this how ideas merge into something better than they were before?

The only alternative, I guess, is to just smile enigmatically at anything anybody says and murmur, "You have the right to your opinion." Everyone does, of course, but nothing ever changes with this method.

But I think what you might be saying is that it is impossible for two people with extremely different ideas to come together into clarity. Perhaps. These days I am an astronomy prof and am always awash in the "scientific method." This simply says that everything is subject to experiment and reason. No matter how cherished an idea, we must release it in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Newton's well-known theories were good enough to get men to the moon and back but they aren't entirely correct, as Dr. Einstein rather famously noted. And all the rest of us mere mortals had to change our minds in view of the new evidence or wallow in ignorance. In political debate the scientific method is less clear but still a goal to pursue. If something works, keep it. If not, find something better.

And I think you may be commenting on the lack of kindeness in these debates. You're right. Arguments become passionate to the degree one holds them important. I apologize for my lack of gentility from time to time. I could say it is my Italian blood, but I know deep inside that if my arguments were as clear as humanly possible, I would be able to state them in a much more amiable manner. I'll work on this. Einstein didn't yell at Newton.

As to the point of flag or bible burning: the burners only have as much power as the non-burners give them. The more these objects are sanctified and personified, the greater the potential glee in those who destroy them. Best way to eliminate the problem? The proven PriusChat Dictum: "Don't Feed the Trolls!" If somebody burns something, bite your tongue and give him no audience. Then it will pretty well stop, as it has in reality. When's the last time you saw (an American) burn a flag or bible? It's no longer "newsworthy."

 

What does the subject of this thread have to do with the Prius??? :angry:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(derk @ Oct 19 2006, 02:05 PM) [snapback]335250[/snapback]</div>

The Prius Chat Forum menu describes Fred's House of Pancakes as the place for "Anything unrelated to the Prius. Come chat. First Amendment is your friend in here."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 28 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]325091[/snapback]</div>

There are different kinds of choices. Some are yes/no (to have dinner or not, is the switch on or off, etc.) and others aren't that simple. While there is a right and a wrong in the world, I'm not sure that we as individuals always have the clarity of mind or purity of intention to correctly identify which is which.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 28 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]325091[/snapback]</div>

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I keep stressing how important it is to *not* come to a definitive conclusion prematurely. I'm not saying never to make a decision, but it seems to me that there's so much pressure in the world to come down on one side of an issue or another, and if you don't immediately, you're labled wishy-washy. I think this is a dangerous dynamic; the converse should be true.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 28 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]325091[/snapback]</div>

Yes, yes! What I'm saying (albeit not that well at times) is to never become so married to an idea that you end up defending it...when you can't even remember why you're defending it in the first place. I'm quite okay with saying that I don't know something, and may I get back to you shortly with an answer...?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 28 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]325091[/snapback]</div>

You know, I'm Greek through and through and fear that I, too can be a little...ummm...forceful in debate at times. I wasn't offended at all.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Sep 28 2006, 11:36 AM) [snapback]325091[/snapback]</div>

Here, here! It's only an affront if there's someone to be upset about it.

 

hmm, interesting thread. I enjoyed reading the discussion between fshagan and Alnilam. Now I have a bit of a sense of their different debate styles. You might find me to be an interesting adversary at some point, Alnilam. I love this type of discussion, though I'm a bit less emotionally involved, and can sometimes be accused of being condescending. I think our world views differ enough that perhaps we'll have the opportunity to lock horns sometime.

As far as the flag and bible burning:
Don't care, ain't important. If your sense of self is defined in these objects such that they symbolize who you are, and you feel that a "desecration" of them somehow does you some form of direct harm, then that's an issue you'll just have to deal with. But if you try to make some kind of law that does not allow people the right to treat these items as they see fit, then you're going to come up against those of us who really do care about our freedoms, because you will have demonstrated that you sure as hell don't.

And just for the record: yes, I served (as if that's somehow a qualification for entering this kind of discussion) in the Army as an 11b (Infantryman). I was also a dedicated soldier, earning an EIB, several Soldier of the Month awards, and being actively recruited to try out for Special Forces or go to West Point (both of which I declined, perhaps stupidly). I can't say I laughed, but I chuckled a bit at Alnilam's obviously pointed joke, knowing what the reference was to.

Vince

 

I think what's most important to me is that conclusions are reached after some thoughtful discourse, instead of a knee-jerk reaction which seems comprised primarily of emotion.

Honestly, I've changed my views over the years too many times to mention, and no doubt will again. And that's okay with me.

Really, being able to admit that "I don't know" is the basis of educating oneself, isn't it? I mean, if one can't admit that, then where do you go from that point?

Right now, it seems to me that there's a lot of reluctance on the part of our public officials to make that admission in any way; what's funny is, it's alarmingly apparent to everyone else that they're as clueless as anyone.

 

Neither of them bothers me one bit. I'm not American, and I'm agnostic.

If I need heat, they're both fair game

 

I somehow drifted away from this thread and come back to see some interesting comments.

Pinto, you are a good moderator and would do well in keeping mortal enemies from shredding each other in verbal combat. You make me consider how much passion to devote to a subject: how many windmills are worth tilting at. I'd do well to heed your good advice and will try to remember it..

VinceDee questions why I asked about military service. No, it isn't a requirement for entering any debate here, but it is a factor to seeing how my little joke, so understandable to anybody with military time, could be mistaken for a mark of disrespect for Marines.

There is an old expression, "everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." I see a parallel to this nowadays in the knee-jerk instant claim of folks to support our troops. It's almost a contest to see who can support them more, the winner being the better American. This is caused by two things, I think. First, a revulsion of the way veterans from Viet Nam days were treated, and second, as a sort of guilt for not having served ones self. There is a vicarious merging of these stay-at-homes with the active troops that makes the former feel better somehow. So, as with my nemesis, they are quick to prove their patriotism by jumping on any perceived slight they might sense, real or imagined.

It is worth noting that the support falls short of real help that our forces may need. I have no respect for these troop-supporting patriots who praise the present leadership which denies essential equipment and strategic planning that will bring our soldiers back alive. There is real service to one's country and then there is lip service. Anybody from Berkeley would know the difference.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alnilam @ Oct 21 2006, 01:38 AM) [snapback]336039[/snapback]</div>

If by "nemesis" you mean me, I will reiterate: you don't know me, and have no basis for making a psychological assessment of me. I'll let other readers decide if its fair to assign such a broad brushed and general statement to someone you don't know, and how that impacts the validity of your other arguments.