Prohibition 2012-- and other rantings.

[Frost Mage]

You shouldn't hate people, dear. And insulting them with the "conservative = dumb" argument is not going to change a thing. (On and unrelated note I do believe those with higher education tend to vote to the right.)

You don't like what's going on? Do something about it. Ranting may feel good, but it's not at all productive.

More educated people tend to vote for the left actually....Studies have shown that

But seriously Frosty, calling Republicans dumb JUST BECAUSE your beliefs don't match only supports the fact that nothing will get done in Congress if people think as strongly as you do. Congress is gridlocked because of the politicians, but it's us who put them there in the first place.

I didn't call them dumb, they're smart, just not in a good way...

[Frost Mage]

They ARE smart in a good way, just not the way YOU want.

@Wolf: It's all good. People need to rant. I always have the urge to

Good is subjective, so nyah. Yeah, looking back at what I posted, I was a little harsh, but hey, this is a thread on opinions.

[MARS]

Don't get me wrong. A person's personal life is of no business of the government's... but if people vote saying they want drugs or same sex illegal, the government must uphold their decision.

Exactly, which is utter BS. Drugs are debateable, but same sex marriage should be a human right.

Aaanyway, not the point of the thread.

These prohibition laws are antique, ineffective and overall just counter-productive. Basically what Howl said.

[Wolf]

Witchery, I read over that graph again, and... What? Where on earth are you getting that people with more education vote republican? That graph states how many of the random sample are republican or democrat, and if you actually look at it, you'll notice the differences are miniscule until college graduation, and even then the difference is less than 10%. Furthermore, the totals don't ever equal 100%. This means that there's an unaccounted-for pool of third parties that the rest of the registered voters are going to. Your graph actually does not at all substantiate your claim that More education = Vote to the right.

This is actually pretty ironic because one of the things that causes stupid arguments like prohibition-era rhetoric is contrived claims with no substantiating evidence.

P.S.-- I never actually said "Conservative = dumb". What I did say, in fact, is that people in Oklahoma are dumb and that Bible-hashed dogma contributes to a lot of it. So.. Yeah. Another poorly contrived argument.

[Wolf]

Don't get me wrong. A person's personal life is of no business of the government's... but if people vote saying they want drugs or same sex illegal, the government must uphold their decision.

Spoiler:

Exactly, which is utter BS. Drugs are debateable, but same sex marriage should be a human right.

Aaanyway, not the point of the thread.

These prohibition laws are antique, ineffective and overall just counter-productive. Basically what Howl said.

Oh, hi there, statement I didn't see. Really? If people vote something, then the government should do it no matter what? Because I'm pretty sure a large majority of voters were against black people having the right to vote. One of the biggest fears about democracy was mob rule, and even the founding fathers knew this. But you know what they did? Well, say hello to the U.S. Court System. This is exactly their job. If people are denied something based on unsubstantiated, religiously driven, or otherwise prejudiced claims, the court's job is to pretty much say "[&@%!] you, you hateful little idgit." And before you try to disagree with me, or bring about some argument that the courts try to legislate from the bench: It was and is literally intrinsic to the courts to remain unpersuaded by public opinion.* So yes. It is actually their job.

* Sorta like how Congress was supposed to exactly not be but recently decided they are going to be.

[MARS]

Wait, that's true? Hah, I'm from the land of Democracy and I didn't know about a key feature.

But yes, as I've said countless times before, religion has no place in politics, nor should it hold any sort of power.

[Wolf]

Yes, this is a triple post. I'm responding to two different people about three different things, and I can't be arsed to keep editing, sorry.

Ohai Mars.

To the extent that the OP wants more alcohol to be sold in more outlets: huzzah!

To the extent that the OP despises backward fuddy-duddies and rednecks, of which Oklahoma is an undoubted leading producer: huzzah!

But!

I'm very much to the point where I won't even speak to anyone that tries to present an illogical argument-- which is more-often-than-not some Bible-hashed, contrived dogma [&@%!] so that they don't have to feel uncomfortable about reality.

Don't forget that the most stubborn, irrational, traditional, and selfishly provincial kind of outlook is also the strongest outlook in the sense of prompting action. You have to learn to translate all your beautiful rhetoric and logic into the simplistic motives that drive people most strongly, if you want to change anything amongst the masses.

Will, thank you for this beautiful post. I whole-heartedly agree, and under other circumstances I'd subscribe to it. However, years of talking to people about these things have taught me a valuable lesson: Most people do not actually want to learn, they just want to flap their jaws and don't care about what you have to say. If I'm actually talking to a person who engages me to think critically, I will most certainly debate them, but most Oklahomans really actually aren't smart enough to do this. So you understand where I'm coming from, I hope, when I say that I disengage when people spout obviously stupid [&@%!].

[Wolf]

Wait, that's true? Hah, I'm from the land of Democracy and I didn't know about a key feature.

But yes, as I've said countless times before, religion has no place in politics, nor should it hold any sort of power.

Yes, that's absolutely true. And yeah, ancient Athens is actually where we got our idea for democracy. Our court system, however, was based on England, so don't feel too bad about not knowing that.

[Witchery]

Witchery, I read over that graph again, and... What? Where on earth are you getting that people with more education vote republican? That graph states how many of the random sample are republican or democrat, and if you actually look at it, you'll notice the differences are miniscule until college graduation, and even then the difference is less than 10%. Furthermore, the totals don't ever equal 100%. This means that there's an unaccounted-for pool of third parties that the rest of the registered voters are going to. Your graph actually does not at all substantiate your claim that More education = Vote to the right.

This is actually pretty ironic because one of the things that causes stupid arguments like prohibition-era rhetoric is contrived claims with no substantiating evidence.

P.S.-- I never actually said "Conservative = dumb". What I did say, in fact, is that people in Oklahoma are dumb and that Bible-hashed dogma contributes to a lot of it. So.. Yeah. Another poorly contrived argument.

link

Here’re some 1990 Gallup poll numbers relating education to political affiliation:

Rep = Republican
Dem = Democrat
Ind = Independent/Unaffiliated

Grade school education:
23.4% Rep, 54.6% Dem, 22.5% Ind

Some High School:
22.8% Rep, 51.3% Dem, 26.0% Ind

High School Grad:
29.4% Rep, 40.5% Dem, 30.2% Ind

Some College and/or Tech:
36.0% Rep, 35.0% Dem, 29.3% Ind

College Grad:
42.0% Rep, 30.7% Dem, 27.7% Ind

Spoiler:

You could argue that conservatives also tend to be more wealthy than liberals, and therefore can send their kids to school. But you'd probably be wrong, because the Southern states are stereotypically poor and vote Republican, while the cities that have the surplus of Democrats have many poor people as well. (There are plenty of exceptions to these "rules," of course.) College professors tend to be more liberal, though Republicans tend to be more educated. It's not that I'm saying they're smarter, just that they went to school. You called these "Bible-thumpers" "ill-educated, illogical, morally self-righteous expletives." Not true. At least on the first point.

Now, back to my main point. It's not nice to insult others.

[Lindai]

College professors tend to be more liberal, though Republicans tend to be more educated.

Witchery, you should know that the Republican party is intended to be liberal. Republicans should be for less government and more liberty as a result. Ron Paul being a prime example of a proper Republican. However it's understandable that people now associate the Republican party with wanting larger government. In fact, the current Republican party, which is much different to that of 50 years ago, should branch off and make another party, perhaps called "The Conservative Christian Dip [&@%!] Party ". The popular Republican members as of today are generally conservative Christians who want nothing more than a larger government to stick its nose into your life, which is totally against what the party should be for. They want to regulate the private lives of the citizens, but don't want to regulate corporations. See their stances on drugs, abortion, homosexuals and contraceptives. Then look at their stances on the taxation of millionaires.

Back on topic-

Wolf, would you ever consider hopping on route 66 and moving west to California, say San Francisco? There's apparently a lot less fundies there. I know that's where I'd go if I wanted to visit America. I certainly would hate to live in a theocratic state that gets into a [&@%!] fit over an atheism billboard.

[Spiney]

Come to Australia, where the non-religious people are the 2nd largest (non)religious demographic.

[DorostheConqueror]

San Fransisco bans, among other things:

Smoking
Cloves
Plastic Bags
Happy Meals
Segways
Foie Gras
Firearms
Advertisements which feature firearms

and they're debating banning cars, circumcision, and the sale of pets.

Moving to San Fran because you're upset about moderate liquor licensing laws makes as much sense as moving to Iran in search of religious freedom. But hey, don't let me stop you.

[Deandra]

Yes, but those are hippies forcing everybody to live a certain way, not religious people forcing everybody to live a certain way. Which is much better.

[Witchery]

Yes, but those are hippies forcing everybody to live a certain way, not religious people forcing everybody to live a certain way. Which is much better.

Oh my, someone actually got it. The hypocrisy of saying "stop shoving your religion down my throat" when you're forcing your beliefs onto others is amazing. What's more amazing is that they actually don't understand how that could be hypocritical.

But, everyone knows hippies are right, Deandra.

[Derp53]

since were on the topic of shoving religion down peoples throats, every ad i see is some christian conservative spouting christ this jesus that, i don't have a problem with you being christian, i have alot of christian friends but- STOP SAYING INVOLVING RELIGION IN POLITICS, CHIRCH AND STATE AND SEPARATE FOR A GOOD BLOODY REASON
end of rant

[MARS]

Yes, but those are hippies forcing everybody to live a certain way, not religious people forcing everybody to live a certain way. Which is much better.

Oh my, someone actually got it. The hypocrisy of saying "stop shoving your religion down my throat" when you're forcing your beliefs onto others is amazing. What's more amazing is that they actually don't understand how that could be hypocritical.

You're so wrong it's not even funny. The only thing being forced on you is tolerance. No one is forcing you to be lustful, homosexual, to drink, nothing. All that is asked of you is to let others do these things.

[Rose of Sithis]

Yes, but those are hippies forcing everybody to live a certain way, not religious people forcing everybody to live a certain way. Which is much better.

Oh my, someone actually got it. The hypocrisy of saying "stop shoving your religion down my throat" when you're forcing your beliefs onto others is amazing. What's more amazing is that they actually don't understand how that could be hypocritical.

You're so wrong it's not even funny. The only thing being forced on you is tolerance. No one is forcing you to be lustful, homosexual, to drink, nothing. All that is asked of you is to let others do these things.

inb4 "tolerance is a belief"

[Jeff]

Have the serenity to accept the things you cannot change,
The courage to change the things you can,
And wisdom to know the difference.

The secret, is that you can only change yourself... You cannot change others.

You can spend your life moving all around the world, and you are going to find people that you do not get along with, or like. They are everywhere and there is no getting away from them. You can spend your life getting upset about the things that you cannot change, and do not matter... or you can be happy with who you are, and enjoy life. Because really... It only matters if you allow it to matter.

[Lindai]

San Fransisco bans, among other things:

Smoking
...
Plastic Bags
Happy Meals
Segways
...
Firearms
Advertisements which feature firearms

and they're debating banning ... circumcision and the sale of pets.

Then it's settled. San Francisco is amazing.

[Witchery]

Yes, but those are hippies forcing everybody to live a certain way, not religious people forcing everybody to live a certain way. Which is much better.

Oh my, someone actually got it. The hypocrisy of saying "stop shoving your religion down my throat" when you're forcing your beliefs onto others is amazing. What's more amazing is that they actually don't understand how that could be hypocritical.

You're so wrong it's not even funny. The only thing being forced on you is tolerance. No one is forcing you to be lustful, homosexual, to drink, nothing. All that is asked of you is to let others do these things.

... what? Banning firearms, plastic bags, smoking, advertisements featuring firearms, etc. = tolerance? I don't understand. How is that different than banning homosexuality and alcohol? You know that was what I was referring to, right?

[MARS]

I didn't actually. Sorry for the assumption.

What did you mean?

[Witchery]

I didn't actually. Sorry for the assumption.

What did you mean?

I was agreeing with Deandra when she said (what I deciphered as) that one group ('hippies') forcing their beliefs on others is no better than another group (religious) doing so.

[MARS]

I got that. But...gah, I guess you cornered me here. Touchè.

[Deandra]

When you think about freedom, every action you take has outside effects. When I smoke in public, people can breathe in that smoke and get irritated or even sick. When I get a plastic bag from a grocery store, that bag will end up in a landfill that will ruin the lives of future generations/waterfowl/whatever. Personally, I feel like the negative effects on society and the environment for simply getting a bag are not that terrible and do not outweigh the cost to my freedom, but that is me. I specifically don't get a reusable grocery bag, and instead expect to get lots of those flimsy plastic ones, because that's what I use to bag up my kitties' poop and dirty litter.

When it comes to things like gay marriage, there is also a cost to society. For one, people tend to get tax breaks for it, which affects the state and federal budget. More subtly, very conservative people like Witchery are going to feel a certain level of disgust at the degradation of society. For me personally, that second cost is exactly zero, or maybe it's a negative cost in that I become happier seeing people in a stable, loving relationship, but considering how the people of California have voted on this issue, I will assume this social aspect is a real burden on people. I don't think that these costs even remotely outweigh the cost to gay couples who are not allowed to have the same rights as straight couples, but that doesn't change the fact that there is a tradeoff.

All of us draw the line somewhere, based on our own values and how much we care about freedom, comfort, the environment, or whatever. That quote by Benjamin Franklin about a little bit of freedom and a little bit of security is a load of [&@%!], and extreme libertarianism ignores some basic facts about what it means to be part of a society and the economics of spillover costs and benefits, which apply to far more than just financial transactions. However, I find myself wishing the law would err more on the side of letting people live their lives however they like as long as they aren't directly harming others, especially when it comes to social issues.

[Dark Spark]

San Fransisco bans, among other things:

Smoking
Cloves
Plastic Bags
Happy Meals
Segways
Foie Gras
Firearms
Advertisements which feature firearms

and they're debating banning cars, circumcision, and the sale of pets.

Moving to San Fran because you're upset about moderate liquor licensing laws makes as much sense as moving to Iran in search of religious freedom. But hey, don't let me stop you.

"Baker Nine, we had 1337 in progress downtown."

"Baker Nine here, repeat?"

"Baker Nine, we have sightings of someone riding a Segway carrying cooked goose-liver. In a plastic bag."

"That dirtbag's goin' down..."