Civil War 2? (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Optimus Prime

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 28, 2019
    Messages
    11,825
    Reaction score
    15,602
    Age
    48
    Location
    Washington DC Metro
    Offline
    Very sobering article
    ================
    If you know people still in denial about the crisis of American democracy, kindly remove their heads from the sand long enough to receive this message: A startling new finding by one of the nation’s top authorities on foreign civil wars says we are on the cusp of our own.

    Barbara F. Walter, a political science professorat the University of California at San Diego, serves on a CIA advisory panel called the Political Instability Task Force that monitors countries around the world and predicts which of them are most at risk of deteriorating into violence.

    By law, the task force can’t assess what’s happening within the United States, but Walter, a longtime friend who has spent her career studying conflicts in Syria, Lebanon, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Rwanda, Angola, Nicaragua and elsewhere, applied the predictive techniques herself to this country.

    Her bottom line: “We are closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.” She lays out the argument in detail in her must-read book, “How Civil Wars Start,” out in January. “No one wants to believe that their beloved democracy is in decline, or headed toward war,” she writes.

    But, “if you were an analyst in a foreign country looking at events in America — the same way you’d look at events in Ukraine or the Ivory Coast or Venezuela — you would go down a checklist, assessing each of the conditions that make civil war likely.

    And what you would find is that the United States, a democracy founded more than two centuries ago, has entered very dangerous territory.”

    Indeed, the United States has already gone through what the CIA identifies as the first two phases of insurgency — the “pre-insurgency” and “incipient conflict” phases — and only time will tell whether the final phase, “open insurgency,” began with the sacking of the Capitol by Donald Trump supporters on Jan. 6.

    Things deteriorated so dramatically under Trump, in fact, that the United States no longer technically qualifies as a democracy. Citing the Center for Systemic Peace’s “Polity” data set — the one the CIA task force has found to be most helpful in predicting instability and violence — Walter writes that the United States is now an “anocracy,” somewhere between a democracy and an autocratic state.

    U.S. democracy had received the Polity index’s top score of 10, or close to it, for much of its history. But in the five years of the Trump era, it tumbled precipitously into the anocracy zone; by the end of his presidency, the U.S. score had fallen to a 5, making the country a partial democracy for the first time since 1800.

    “We are no longer the world’s oldest continuous democracy,” Walter writes. “That honor is now held by Switzerland, followed by New Zealand, and then Canada. We are no longer a peer to nations like Canada, Costa Rica, and Japan, which are all rated a +10 on the Polity index.”…….

    Others have reached similar findings. The Stockholm-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance put the United States on a list of “backsliding democracies” in a report last month.

    “The United States, the bastion of global democracy, fell victim to authoritarian tendencies itself," the report said.

    And a new survey by the academic consortium Bright Line Watch found that 17 percent of those who identify strongly as Republicans support the use of violence to restore Trump to power, and 39 percent favor doing everything possible to prevent Democrats from governing effectively……



     
    No, science is pretty clear, life begins at conception.

    I can't claim my dog on my taxes either but there are laws preventing me from killing it out of convenience, is there not?
    Ye gods are you being disingenuous on this.
    Personhood doesn't begin at conception. It hasn't through all of human history. Personhood has begun at birth. In some cultures somewhat afterwards since fetal mortality rates were so high.
    A fetus is no more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree.

    Whether a clump of cells is "life" or not is irrelevant.
     
    No, science is pretty clear, life begins at conception.
    More bullshirt. You show me where science has determined that human life begins at conception and I'll apologize. Otherwise, that's your religion talking.
    I can't claim my dog on my taxes either but there are laws preventing me from killing it out of convenience, is there not?
    No woman in the history of the world has ever been raped and forced to give birth to a dog so it's beyond ridiculous that you would use a dog as a comparison to a woman not being able to control her own body but when you don't have anything else, use what you can get away with. Can you show me a human that has given birth to a dog? I'll wait.

    Oh and you can't claim a fish, a bird or any other animal on your taxes nor can you get social security card for them. That's because they are not humans. And to address your last attempt at a point, which I also found ridiculous, you are correct in that there are laws that punish PEOPLE for abuse of animals. However, unlike the laws that you support, you absolutely can kill a dog or any other animal that threatens your life. If left to folks like yourself, a woman wouldn't even have that option.
     
    Yes, Christians are big on self agency. So, the simple solution that is always ignored because in today's world, self control is not popular, is don't have sex and if you can't control that urge, be smart enough to use protection. If that is not enough and you get someone pregnant or become pregnant, congratulations, you are going to be a parent because of you consequences of you own actions and it is a wonder experience and you should make the best of it and enjoy being a parent.

    Why not get an abortion? That's self agency.
     
    Almost every thing you say just isn’t true. You use the word “science” without any understanding of it. Because a group of cells is alive doesn’t make it a full human being, a person, with rights that overrule the rights of the woman that is hosting those cells. And it doesn’t matter how many times you indicate how you think the woman shouldn’t have any rights, it will never be true.

    You assert that suicidal people will harm themselves without regard to the method, I don’t believe that’s true either. I think guns facilitate killing, by suicide or any other method.

    Christianity shouldn’t impose their beliefs on other people. That’s not a core teaching of Christianity, to force people to follow their religious beliefs, at least to my knowledge. God is the only judge of sin, not you nor anyone else gets to judge.

    This isn’t the first time a whole bunch of people have misinterpreted Christianity to justify their own power grab, though, and it won’t be the last. It will always be wrong, though, and against God.
    Are those cells going to be a swing set, golf clubs or a puppy? No, they are going to be human being. No other option.

    Suicide's don't happen unless a gun available? Did the heavens gate have a mass shootout or did they take drugs to kill themselves? Your fear of guns doesn't make them any more dangerous.

    If I get behind the wheel of a car after drinking a little too much and I hit someone and the cops arrest me for DUI, am I being arrest for breaking the law or sinning? Same with abortion. No one is judging anyone for having sex, but if your choice brings about the natural and indented consequence, then it is your responsibility to do the best you can with that consequence.

    Are you singling out Christianity for a reason? Do you not see evils done by other faiths as well, or are we only focusing on Christianity because you know I happen to be one? And to be fair, this would not be the first time that a bunch of folks demonized Christianity/religion to justify their power grab either.
     
    Why not get an abortion? That's self agency.
    If it is legal where you are, have at it.

    Picking murdering your spouse over a divorce is self agency as well. Putting a pet up for adoption over shooting it in the head our back is self agency, for sure easier but that is frowned upon as well.
     
    More bullshirt. You show me where science has determined that human life begins at conception and I'll apologize. Otherwise, that's your religion talking.

    No woman in the history of the world has ever been raped and forced to give birth to a dog so it's beyond ridiculous that you would use a dog as a comparison to a woman not being able to control her own body but when you don't have anything else, use what you can get away with. Can you show me a human that has given birth to a dog? I'll wait.

    Oh and you can't claim a fish, a bird or any other animal on your taxes nor can you get social security card for them. That's because they are not humans. And to address your last attempt at a point, which I also found ridiculous, you are correct in that there are laws that punish PEOPLE for abuse of animals. However, unlike the laws that you support, you absolutely can kill a dog or any other animal that threatens your life. If left to folks like yourself, a woman wouldn't even have that option.
    You want to know how a woman can have a say over her body? Not have sex or use protection, but that would take some self control.

    https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-life-begins/

    "The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception."
    When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004

    I don't think you will give me that apology, but thanks for the offer.
     
    You want to know how a woman can have a say over her body? Not have sex or use protection, but that would take some self control.

    https://www.justthefacts.org/get-the-facts/when-life-begins/

    "The American College of Pediatricians concurs with the body of scientific evidence that human life begins at conception - fertilization…. Scientific and medical discoveries over the past three decades have only verified and solidified this age-old truth. At the completion of the process of fertilization, the human creature emerges as a whole, genetically distinct, individuated zygotic living human organism, a member of the species homo sapiens, needing only the proper environment in order to grow and develop. The difference between the individual in its adult stage and in its zygotic stage is not one of personhood but of development. The Mission of the American College of Pediatricians is to enable all children to reach their optimal physical and emotional health and well-being from the moment of conception."
    When Human Life Begins, American College of Pediatricians, March 2004

    I don't think you will give me that apology, but thanks for the offer.
    Yeah, that's going to be a no for me dog.....
    1655319429331.png


    1655319429331.png
     
    Yeah, that's going to be a no for me dog.....
    1655319429331.png


    1655319429331.png
    Did you read the article or just the excerpt? There are several more findings from other sources as well.

    Can you show me where science says that life does not begin at conception?
     
    If it is legal where you are, have at it.

    Picking murdering your spouse over a divorce is self agency as well. Putting a pet up for adoption over shooting it in the head our back is self agency, for sure easier but that is frowned upon as well.

    Exactly. Keeping the embryo and self agency has nothing to do with the abortion debate. Thanks for making my point. It certainly has nothing to do with why our government should force woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
     
    Are those cells going to be a swing set, golf clubs or a puppy? No, they are going to be human being. No other option.
    This had nothing, zero, to do with whether the cells are a full human being before they are viable. With rights that supercede the woman‘s rights. They are not and do not.

    Suicide's don't happen unless a gun available? Did the heavens gate have a mass shootout or did they take drugs to kill themselves? Your fear of guns doesn't make them any more dangerous.
    You mischaracterized what I said, egregiously. You said that we could disregard gun deaths that are suicide because those people will kill themselves by another method. I said this just isn’t true. Guns make it easy, and a split second decision. Not everyone will go to the trouble of killing themselves by other methods, which generally take more planning and effort. So it’s just not true what you said. What makes you think I’m scared of guns? Lol, what an idiotic thing to say.

    If I get behind the wheel of a car after drinking a little too much and I hit someone and the cops arrest me for DUI, am I being arrest for breaking the law or sinning? Same with abortion. No one is judging anyone for having sex, but if your choice brings about the natural and indented consequence, then it is your responsibility to do the best you can with that consequence.
    Society shouldn’t legislate sins. Crimes involve more than one person, and then society should have a say. At the point that the fetus becomes viable, the argument can be made that we now have two people. Before that we have one person, and government should leave her alone to make her own decisions. Only your religion is telling you that the fetus is a full human being before viability with rights that supersede the woman’s rights. Only your religion is telling you that the only purpose for sex is to procreate. None of this is society‘s business.

    Are you singling out Christianity for a reason? Do you not see evils done by other faiths as well, or are we only focusing on Christianity because you know I happen to be one? And to be fair, this would not be the first time that a bunch of folks demonized Christianity/religion to justify their power grab either.
    I’m singling out Christianity here for 2 reasons. First, it is Christians who are trying to take rights away from women. And second, they have a real fascist problem with fringe Christians right now. It seems to be Christianity’s turn to have a radicalization problem, similar to what Islam went through a while ago. They openly talk about executing gay people, outlawing birth control, etc. They want to control everyone’s private lives - which is why I am discussing Christianity. Believe me, it’s not all about you, lol.

    Oh, and I almost missed your last sentence. Explain how women wanting to have the right to make their own medical decisions about their bodies is a “power grab”? A power grab would be making people have abortions. Letting people be free to either have or not have abortions is the opposite of a power grab. Good grief. This is taxing to respond to such bad faith arguments.
     
    Exactly. Keeping the embryo and self agency has nothing to do with the abortion debate. Thanks for making my point. It certainly has nothing to do with why our government should force woman to carry a pregnancy to term.
    Except, that embryo has lost is ability of self agency. You are basically arguing who's life is more important. The result of that question is one will be inconvienced and might not be able to school right away ect..... the other is death.

    Well, the state is responsible for protection of the weak of society, so yes, the state has to be involved. How the state is involved is up to those who live in the state.
     
    Society shouldn’t legislate sins. Crimes involve more than one person, and then society should have a say. At the point that the fetus becomes viable, the argument can be made that we now have two people. Before that we have one person, and government should leave her alone to make her own decisions. Only your religion is telling you that the fetus is a full human being before viability with rights that supersede the woman’s rights. Only your religion is telling you that the only purpose for sex is to procreate. None of this is society‘s business.


    I’m singling out Christianity here for 2 reasons. First, it is Christians who are trying to take rights away from women. And second, they have a real fascist problem with fringe Christians right now. It seems to be Christianity’s turn to have a radicalization problem, similar to what Islam went through a while ago. They openly talk about executing gay people, outlawing birth control, etc. They want to control everyone’s private lives - which is why I am discussing Christianity. Believe me, it’s not all about you, lol.

    Oh, and I almost missed your last sentence. Explain how women wanting to have the right to make their own medical decisions about their bodies is a “power grab”? A power grab would be making people have abortions. Letting people be free to either have or not have abortions is the opposite of a power grab. Good grief. This is taxing to respond to such bad faith arguments.
    Do you know a lot of Christians that want to execute gay people? I don't and I have never heard anything like that and I doubt you have too, except in your media.

    I said people or rail against religion for their power grab are not new either. Those often tend to lead to thousand, if not millions being executed.

    Why is practicing safe sex or abstinence not even a possible suggestion as opposed to abortion? That is what baffles me.
     
    Except, that embryo has lost is ability of self agency. You are basically arguing who's life is more important. The result of that question is one will be inconvienced and might not be able to school right away ect..... the other is death.

    Well, the state is responsible for protection of the weak of society, so yes, the state has to be involved. How the state is involved is up to those who live in the state.

    The woman has a right to self determination. That is a right that is acknowledged by all (well, most. I guess some conservatives like yourself don't see it that way).

    The rights to life of the embryo are not acknowledge by all or even most in this society at the moment of conception. So your argument fails.

    Also, if you acknowledge that the state is responsible for the protection of it's citizens (or the weak, as you put it), then you also acknowledge that the state has a right and responsibility to to regulate guns and weapons. Including banning the most dangerous ones.
     
    Do you know a lot of Christians that want to execute gay people? I don't and I have never heard anything like that and I doubt you have too, except in your media.

    I mean, there are several videos of them doing just that on this board. But I guess we should act like that's not happening.

    You think the guys in Idaho where just there for shirts and giggles?
     
    Do you know a lot of Christians that want to execute gay people? I don't and I have never heard anything like that and I doubt you have too, except in your media.

    I said people or rail against religion for their power grab are not new either. Those often tend to lead to thousand, if not millions being executed.

    Why is practicing safe sex or abstinence not even a possible suggestion as opposed to abortion? That is what baffles me.
    Who says birth control or abstinence isn’t an option? Pro-abortion people don’t want to take any options away from anyone. It must be noted that a lot of the religious right has a problem with birth control also, though, and I have read of several people saying they want to outlaw some forms of birth control as well.

    There isn’t anyone on the left talking about mass executions at this point in time, Farb. But there are lots of crazy people on the right talking about it and it’s getting more and more common. I do subscribe to the “horseshoe” theory. Both extremes are really bad and capable of atrocities, and are very much alike.

    But right now the actual threats are coming from the right. When I was a teenager and in my 20’s, the threats seemed to come from the left, although the right did manage to have the National Guard kill 4 college students in Ohio, so not every threat was from the left. 🤷‍♀️
     
    Did you read the article or just the excerpt? There are several more findings from other sources as well.

    Can you show me where science says that life does not begin at conception?
    I'm not interested in proving a negative. The rest of the article was simply based on conjecture rooted in the religious beliefs. Nice try but next time, find something more credible to quote than an organization described as "a fringe anti-LGBTQ hate group that masquerades as the premier U.S. association of pediatricians".
     
    Except, that embryo has lost is ability of self agency. You are basically arguing who's life is more important. The result of that question is one will be inconvienced and might not be able to school right away ect..... the other is death.

    Well, the state is responsible for protection of the weak of society, so yes, the state has to be involved. How the state is involved is up to those who live in the state.

    The embryo never had any ability or right (as recognized by our populace) to self agency. You realize we're talking about an embryo, a clump of cells ...

    Even a child that is born has limited self agency that is mostly subject to it's parent/guardians will, with some exceptions, until adulthood. The child does have a right to life though, as recognized by all of our populace and laws.
     
    The woman has a right to self determination. That is a right that is acknowledged by all (well, most. I guess some conservatives like yourself don't see it that way).

    The rights to life of the embryo are not acknowledge by all or even most in this society at the moment of conception. So your argument fails.

    Also, if you acknowledge that the state is responsible for the protection of it's citizens (or the weak, as you put it), then you also acknowledge that the state has a right and responsibility to to regulate guns and weapons. Including banning the most dangerous ones.
    The weak are in danger by guns? Seems like a weak person with a gun is not so weak anymore, so self defense is a right, correct?

    My argument is not based on what most of society believes. They also believe men can have babies and the government cares about them.

    The woman has the ultimate say in self determination when it comes to having a baby. She is in total control up until she has another life inside her from her own actions.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom