Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ah, so it is legal! Guess my memory's off; I thought it was due to reading about a case in Florida some years ago about sacrificing chickens. Must've been my imagination, then.

No, that's the case. Florida banned it, SCOTUS reversed them.

Wait, animal sacrifice is seriously legal in this country?

Animal sacrifice is legal in the United States of America, by order of the Supreme Court. Whether or not it is required to conform to animal cruelty or slaughter laws is something that you'd probably have to check in your area.

It isn't exactly like we don't kill animals for lots of other reasons. Hunting, for example.

[Nadaka]

Nadaka, you have been very conflictarian as of late. I understand that you're probably under a lot of pressure and stress from your personal situation right now, but could you at least try to take a step back and review if your politics-related posts aren't needlessly aggressive in the future? I know I'm not a shining example of such self-awareness myself, but still.

In short, please amplify your relaxed state.

I see no reason to couch the truth with subtlety and innuendo. You mistake bluntness, conviction and determination with aggression.

That isn't the case in American politics. The social conservatives are the same people who claim to be fiscal conservatives.

Again, that's a blanket judgment. Have you met everyone who claims to be conservative in America? I'm fairly certain not everyone is Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.

I've met enough of them. I also have access to the historical records of acts of presidents, voting records of the house/senate, and plenty of other very very strong support for the statement.

Conservative is a singular concept in American politics. Aside from stonewalling everything Obama tried to do, what did the 2010 freshman (self proclaimed tea baggers, its not an insult) congress do after campaigning on fiscal conservatism? Vote to expand military spending, prevent the shutdown of Guantanamo and enforce religious morality through laws targeting gays and abortion. That is just one in a long long list of concrete examples.

[Frumple]

That isn't the case in American politics. The social conservatives are the same people who claim to be fiscal conservatives.

Again, that's a blanket judgment. Have you met everyone who claims to be conservative in America? I'm fairly certain not everyone is Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.

I think Nad's talking more specifically about conservative politicians -- and especially the ones in higher office (state governors, house, senate, etc.). Insofar as I've paid attention, they've got a pretty strong record of voting partisan over whatever their primary conservative principle is... and considering the republican party hasn't done the sane (well, in some ways) thing and split along social and fiscal lines, well...

As I understand it, the reps have actually been losing some folks over that, though American political system being what it is, there's no telling how much an effect that'll have (if any), or how soon the impact shows up. E: To emphasize this point, it should be carefully considered that conservative voters, conservative demagogues, and conservative politicians can at times be considered as three entirely separate groups, sometimes with radically different principles.

Anyway, in a sense, Nad has "met" all the conservative politicians -- their (political) actions (i.e. voting record) are public record. You don't really need 100% accuracy when using a handle like conservative or republican, just a majority accuracy. Outliers are outliers, et al.

Ninja'd twice in the typing of one post. I surrender

Being perfectly fair, the "liberal" politicians aren't exactly better, they're just not burdened with the whole blatantly bigoted (among other things) social policy thing.

Wait, animal sacrifice is seriously legal in this country?

Why wouldn't it be? Animal cruelty probably wouldn't pass considering stuff like kosher slaughter... or just the state of the meat industry in general, heh. Ninja'd a bit, yeh.

[penguinofhonor]

Wait, animal sacrifice is seriously legal in this country?

Animal sacrifice is legal in the United States of America, by order of the Supreme Court. Whether or not it is required to conform to animal cruelty or slaughter laws is something that you'd probably have to check in your area.

It isn't exactly like we don't kill animals for lots of other reasons. Hunting, for example.

Yeah, I prefer my dead animals to be useful. Killing them unnecessarily, either for either sport or scripture, is cruelty. Just as how awesomely fun and exciting hunting is doesn't make it less cruel, being awesomely soul saving doesn't either.

That isn't the case in American politics. The social conservatives are the same people who claim to be fiscal conservatives.

Again, that's a blanket judgment. Have you met everyone who claims to be conservative in America? I'm fairly certain not everyone is Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.

Is this even relevant? I think it's evidence enough that the vast majority of big conservative voices are socially and economically conservative, conservative discussion is along the same lines, and conservative candidates are elected with views that are consistently conservative in all areas. If there are a bunch of social liberal/economic conservatives, social conservative/economic liberals then they sure aren't voting very much.

I mean, if all the socially conservative/economic liberals consistently vote for the socially and economically conservative candidate, how relevant is their liberalness?

[Josephus]

Is this even relevant?

No, my standard role in any argument is to introduce unnecessary lines of inquiry and hopefully break either side's momentum.

[Bauglir]

I see no reason to couch the truth with subtlety and innuendo. You mistake bluntness, conviction and determination with aggression.

Bluntness, conviction, and determination are aggression when applied to telling a person what they believe, regardless of protestation. When you say things like,

What the hell are you smoking?

You aren't demonstrating resilience in the face of aggression from another. When you tell a conservative that "conservatives are all about big government", despite that person's claim of preference for small government, you're not being blunt, you're but one step removed from attacking a strawman.

I actually hold the same beliefs you seem to hold about conservatives in general, about conservative politicians. This isn't somebody trying to distract from the issues by bringing up etiquette. This is somebody who thinks etiquette is one of the issues. To put it in your terms, people who insist on partisan bullshit under the guise of "conviction and determination" are everything that's wrong with modern politics, and are largely responsible for the crap our government is burying its citizens under, because they're destroying our ability to think about anything but beating the other guy. It's the primary flaw with Republican rhetoric, and a significant one in that of the Democrats to boot.

It doesn't matter whether you think you're right. So do they.

[kaijyuu]

IIRC Nadaka's got a moral disposition against "hiding" people's monstrous actions. Problem is he equates perceived monstrous actions and actual monstrous actions, leading to premature accusations.

EDIT: "monstrous actions" might be a tad too harsh a word here, so just "bad stuff in general."

[Bauglir]

Also I should probably apologize for the tone of my last post, which was primarily to demonstrate the point I'm trying to get at. I'm not sure if that justifies it or not, but I'm hoping that either the literal meaning of the words or the emotional response to ignore that literal meaning that they should inspire will be an effective tool for communicating why that sort of post isn't generally an effective tool for communicating, and I'm not entirely sure this sentences parses meaningfully.

[Nadaka]

 I'm not even making an accusation of him being monstrous or even bad.

I am calling him out on being factually wrong.

"What are you smoking?" Is a very common expression of incredulity.

Like I said, actions speak louder than words. Conservative powers support large invasive govornment in effectively all cases for at least 80 years. By putting support behind those powers you are explicitly supporting large govornment without regard to what you say you support.

[scriver]

Nadaka, you're a valued member of this community and I would rather you self-moderated, but if you won't even recognise your behaviour there's nothing left for us to do than to start reporting you, because right now you're acting a lot like Nikov did on his bad days.

[Josephus]

you're acting a lot like Nikov did

Past tense? Nikov got banned?

Huh. I wonder who else got hammered while I was away.

[scriver]

Some old guys you might remember, like Retro and dasleah (although I can't remember if that was his exact name), but otherwise it was mostly new ones as far as I know.

But yeah, Nikov got banned. He got a bit too conflict-seeking on the end, even though he had mostly shaped up (ad far as I saw at least) the time before his last overstep, after being muted a few times.

[sneakey pete]

I wouldn't say anything nakada has posted would even come close to warrant being reported...

[Sheb]

Yeah, me neither. It's true that his writing may be a bit shrill, but he hasn't exactly accused anyone of anything. The worst you could say is that he wasn't clear enough: Saying to someone that he actually doesn't believe in what he profess to believe may sound insulting, but once he explained it, it's reasoning is sound: if you say you believe in small government but consistently support a party that has supported large government for the last 60 years, you clearly mistook the rhetoric for the truth.

Seriously, conservatives that claim the GOP is for small government are almost as bad as those communists you find in European universities that claim that neither Lenin nor Mao nor whoever was a real communist, and that communism is the only pathway toward a real democracy.

[Blargityblarg]

I think the bottom line here is that Nadaka's idea of conservatism does not necessarily line up with what is considered conservatism by most of the rest of us.