Where do you stand on other controversial issues?

Oh, I definitely agree in terms of the voting part.

To answer your question, I think people in power need to critically think through situations, and make decisions logically and rationally.

 

[youtube]9kCyqBKewr4[/youtube]

 

So you would be opposed to them using rationalization as the basis for their decision making?

Rationalization only touches upon logic in an indirect way. It is an unconscious way to conceal behaviors or feelings that someone perceives to be controversial by attempting to logically justify and explain them in a rational manner. It is an attempt to avoid criticism and blame.

You speak a lot about accepting responsibility and the consequences of ones actions, but rationalization is all about avoiding those things. Most importantly it is frequently a self-delusion.

For example, if the President orders a Drone strike to kill a terrorist and in the process of killing the terrorist the drone murders five children, a pregnant woman, and three innocent men in addition to the terrorist - the President can rationalize these deaths. It was a necessary thing, he might say, to protect the country. He was doing his duty. But this is merely an attempt to avoid admitting the cold hard truth: he is indirectly responsible for the murder of innocent people, including children and a fetus. The rationalization allows him to avoid feelings of guilt so that he may sleep easy at night, but it does not change the reality of what has occurred or the consequences of his actions merely his perception of them.

I want to be clear, I'm not making moral judgments. If you read my previous post before I engaged you, I pointed out that I don't believe in good and evil. As far as the Universe is concerned you could drop a nuclear bomb and slaughter a quarter million people - time will keep marching on. You can murder a woman and engage in an act of cannibalism - time will keep marching on.

You may think these things are over the top, but all people need to do is find a way to rationalize them.

You might believe that dropping a nuclear bomb and slaughtering a quarter million people is never justifiable, but people do it all the time with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maybe 1945 was just a special year - the year of the exception? Over a quarter million people died as a consequence of dropping the atomic bombs, but people seem to sleep just fine at night comforted by their rationalizations. A quarter of a million people died and time just kept marching on.

You might believe cannibalism is awful and disgusting, that it is never justifiable. Yet, some cultures over the course of human history have embraced various forms of cannibalism, mostly in the form of ritual cannibalism. Of course, if you're starving you'll be surprised at what you're capable of doing to stay alive. Just ask the survivors of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571. We benefit from our agriculture and having local stores that sell us abundant amounts of food that makes us fat and happy. This was not always the case, of course, and we're lucky to have never seen a real famine. However, when the hunger pangs are at their worst, I think you'll be shocked at what your mind can rationalize, and after you take that first bite of human flesh time will just keep marching on.

You may argue that these are exceptions, and that they don't prove the rule. Perhaps that is the case, but that also isn't the point. The point is to focus in on how rationalization works.

One of the beautiful but also horrible aspects of the human mind is that it can rationalize anything it wants. Unfortunately, it still can't change the underlying facts.

The moment those bombs dropped the world changed a little bit as a quarter million people were murdered as a result. That was the consequence of that act, no matter how you rationalize it. Similarly, the moment you take that first bite of human flesh - no matter how hungry you may be - you are a cannibal. You can rationalize all you want, but you're still a cannibal.

No matter how we dress things up it is never more than an attempt to shield ourselves from reality - from the truth.

So what does this have to do with anything? Why is rationalization bad? Because when a leader makes a decision it needs to be based in solid logic and reasoning. It needs to be soundly grounded in reality.

When a terrorist strikes and kills a thousand people, the natural human reaction is to cry out for vengeance. However, a good leader resists the urge to embrace that instinct. He understands the logical fallacy of two wrongs not making a right. He also isn't going to be swayed by the logical fallacies of Appeal to Emotion ("These are evil people! They are sick and twisted! They must be stopped!") or Appeal to Popularity ("The country overwhelmingly supports a retributive strike!"). A good leader understands that by doing those things he may not be making the best choice, that he is limiting his options. Who is to say that attacking the terrorists homeland (or country they trained in) is the best course of action? What are the costs vs the benefits? What other options can be laid on the table? A leader asks these questions and considers them. The leader doesn't make a choice and then attempt to rationalize it later, he places all options on the table, and then uses his logic and reason to determine the best course of action.

As much as people like to debate over abortion, my favorite debate is actually the death penalty. People will strongly decry an act of murder, but will find no fault in the next breath in promoting it. Rationalization is a wondrous thing.

"He's a horrible person, he killed lots of people; he deserves to die!" When people think like this they aren't thinking about the consequences of their actions, the system that they're creating - a system of punishment and retribution. It is no accident that the United States has such a horrific recidivism rate. The death penalty is just the proverbial cherry on top of our retribution and punishment filled Sunday.

The irony of course, is that the death penalty is hardly a punishment, it's an easy ticket out. Whether someone believes he's bound for Hell, or they're an atheist like me and believe that once you're dead that's it... you're going to die in the end anyway. That's everyone's fate. So, what we're really talking about is whether or not he's going to die in prison of a natural death, caged up like an animal, stripped of his freedom, or if he's going to die next week with a needle in his arm. Once the shit starts flowing into your veins - it's over - you're free, one way or another. Put me in there for life and I know which one I'm choosing.

I'm opposed to the death penalty, not because I think some mass murderer deserves to live, nor because I want him to suffer like a caged animal for the remainder of his life. I don't really care one way or another about his fate or his comfort. I'm opposed to it, in part, because I understand the type of system it creates and how retributive justice trickles down from the mass murderer to the teenager who made a stupid mistake by stealing a car for a joy ride. I understand the consequences of that, and the larger impact it has on our society.

Even more than that, though, I understand that innocent people - no matter how hard we try to prevent it - will be murdered. So, when I see some mass murderer hauled into court, and I watch people call for his blood, I can't help but wonder what goes through their minds. I also have to chuckle a little bit, because even though they've placed themselves high up on that moral pedestal that exists in their minds, at the end of the day they fail to see that they're really not so different. The only real difference between them is that he - the murderer - had the guts to pull the trigger himself, whereas the vengeful crowd gets to hide behind the curtain of the state.

It's easy to stand on the outside and howl for blood, when you can have the state do it for you. The state is a wonderful thing like that, it can hide all the ugly things that you don't want to see.

I have to wonder how many of them would have the courage to stand in that execution room and look him in the eyes? How many of them would put that needle in his arm? Will they do it with a smile, like he did when he killed all those people? Will they feel real good inside, as the poison flows into his veins, and they look up at the window and see his mother and family screaming and crying - begging for it to stop? Will they have the courage to look his family in the eye and tell them that he deserved what he got, just like he did to his victims families after his sentencing in the courtroom? Will they look into his dead lifeless eyes and feel that sense of adrenaline rush that he felt when he killed all those people? When they walk out of that room how will they rationalize keeping themselves so high up on that moral pedestal?

Or, more likely, if any of them were placed in that situation, how many of them would chicken out? After all, you don't need courage when you have the state to be courageous for you.

That's somebody else's job. Somebody has to stand in that room and put that needle in his arm. And he does that job for that crowd howling for blood - that crowd seeking vengeance. He does it for them, but they never have to see it. They are shielded, conveniently, from the consequences and responsibility.

So, when he draws his last breath they may cheer over his death, but ultimately they will move on with their lives and he'll be forgotten. His family, though distraught over his death, may move on with their lives as well and try to cling to the happier memories. But the executioner doesn't get to move on, no. Next week he's set to murder someone else, the guy who didn't make the Nightly News, the guy who no one has really heard of except his family - the guy who is probably one of the innocent ones.

And when the executioner sticks the needle in that innocent mans arm, he's doing it for that same crowd who has now moved on. All the while time just keeps marching on, prisoner after prisoner, execution after execution, until the next big case works the crowd back into a frenzy once more.

This is the face of the state with the mask removed. It does the dirty work that the people don't want to do themselves or don't want to even know about. It's easy to call for an execution when you aren't the one putting the needle in his arm.

Similarly, it's easy to support a war when you never have to fight in it, when you can fast forward past its coverage on your DVR like a commercial, when you never have to see the remains brought home, comfort a grieving family, or see the mangled corpses of our enemies and "collateral damage." You never have to see one of your friends die, and you never have to take a life. And when its all over and the parade starts all you have to do is stand out there and wave your little flag. It's easy to do it. It's easy to feel your heart swell with pride, to talk about sacrifice without ever being called upon to actually make one, and all of this is possible because the state hides the ugliness of your actions from you.

Yes, your actions. Our actions. That's the beauty of a democracy. People like to point to elected leaders and cast blame upon them, it's convenient to do that, because it takes the blame off of us. It's easy for them to overlook a simple fact: Democracy starts with the individual - you, and a government that is for the people and by the people takes action on behalf of the people. So for every action taken, desired and undesired alike, it is done in our name. We all carry that little kernel of responsibility, and we all collectively bare the consequences.

And again, I want to say, this has nothing to do with morality. This has to do with the type of government you value - the type of society you value. Do we want to live in a society and be led by a government of delusion? Or do we want to live in a society and be led by a government that makes sound logical decisions that it can defend?

I know I'm responding to you, Mike, but this really has nothing to do with you. This is really a response to everyone. The reason I engaged you was because I wanted to see if I could push you to think more deeply. That's all I really want; I want people to stop for a moment, and really think deeply about what they believe and why they believe it. I want people to question their beliefs, and wonder why they hold them. I want people to wonder about the greater consequences their beliefs have on society and the government as a whole.

That's really what this is about, because I do believe that sometimes we must do things that most would regard as horrific. Sometimes it is necessary to do things that repulse us. The key is doing it with your eyes wide open, not shielding yourself with delusion, but to understand what you're doing and perhaps most importantly why you're doing it.

 

I have to ask... am I the only one surprised that on a primarily LGBTQ forum, the one controversial issue causing the huge debates is abortion? (Yes, I know the current debate isn't, but we had 2 pages on abortion. )

 

Pseudojim - I stand corrected on the terminology. Thank you.

IMHO - the male and female gametes have no potential to be a viable life on their own - the other half is needed. The fertilized egg does.

IMHO there is a world of difference between masturbation, menstruation and abortion.

 

Aldrick - wonderful post. It's probably the longest post I've ever read but I couldn't agree more.

I was already firmly against the death penalty and your post (and the way it got me thinking) only confirmed my beliefs.

 

Aldrick - may I also offer my congratulations - your post was eloquent and thought-provoking. May I use it in class?

 

Because I'm spiteful.

Like that guy that just shot up a movie theater. I want something bad to happen to him, and I would prefer it to hurt, a lot.

 

Glad you mention him, HuffPost just posted this on FB, with the caption "Is it time for the nation to tighten its gun control laws?": James Holmes, Aurora Shooting Suspect, Purchased 6,000 Rounds Of Ammunition Online

Seriously, how do the US gun control laws work? HOW can it be possible to buy this much as an individual?!

 

Laws depend to some degree on where you are. The laws in Texas are different than the laws in New York. There are some federal laws that hold true regardless of the State, but each State has its own individual laws regarding the matter. Like in Texas you can legally carry a concealed weapon if you take a class to get a permit and have no criminal record or mental stability issues, while in New York I don't think you can carry at all legally.

 

Abortion?
Against, unless its like the child birth will kill the mother, then it's down to the mother, even in rape cases.

Death Penalty?
haha no, there are better ways to teach someone a lesson

No fault divorce?
Don't really see a problem with that

Stem Cell Research?
So long as it's from artificial cells, see Abortion

Pornography?
maybe not illegal but moreregulated, making sure people doing it are of age and disease free etc

Affirmative Action?
I don't know what that is

Medical Marijuana?
Treats Symptoms and not causes of depression, as a good Psychologist student I can tell you that's not a good thing

Marijuana legalization?
I think It would semi legitimise the Mexican Drug war on the side of the cartels and the side effects are nasty, keep it illegal in my opinion

Gun Control?
We had bad Gun Control here in Northern Ireland. Part of what led to the IRA. Not cool.

Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)?
I don't see it as a big problem, I mean if you don't like it then just zone it out, like I do about stuff on Facebook I don't agree with, it's only written words with good intentions behind them

Obamacare?
NHS biatches without which I, My sisters and my Dad would be dead

 

Thank you, feel free to use it however you like.

 

Abortion?
Don't personally like it, but I support peoples right to have them.

Death Penalty?
Totally against it in every situation.

No fault divorce?
Yes.

Stem Cell Research?
100% for it.

Pornography?
I'm for it.

Affirmative Action?
I'm against it in some cases, for it in others. It's one of those issues I just don't know what to think of.

Medical Marijuana?
For it.

Marijuana legalization?
For it.

Gun Control?
I am very, very, very pro-gun control.

Religious language used for nation purpose (on currency, in the pledge)?
I personally don't have an issue with it, but can understand why others would not like it. I am totally against it being used in modern government. It has no place in today's government, but I don't have issue with religious words in 200 year old songs or sayings.

Obamacare?
Not an American, but I have done a lot of research on it. If you disagree with Obamacare, you either don't understand it, or are an idiot...not sure how to say that nicely.

 

f--k that ^
Or you are neither of the above, and:
1) Believe that you should never be forced to buy a service (in this case medical insurance) provided by some company (even if you can choose from multiple companies)
2) You cannot afford the outrageous costs of that service

even before it won I disliked that thing we now have for a president the whole healthcare bs makes my dislike for it even stronger.

 

I understand that many people are against the individual mandate, but people without health insurance are an enormous burden on the system. If they are injured, they either lose everything to try and pay for it, or the government gets stuck with the bill. Requiring Americans to have basic health insurance ensures that everybody will be covered in case of injury or illness. It is no different than paying taxes to have firefighters or police officers ready to come assist you if you are in trouble. Plus, the individual mandate does not require everybody to buy insurance, it only requires it of those who can afford it, if your income is low enough, you are exempt.

Most Americans already have health insurance! All Obamacare does is makes it cheaper for them, and helps those who can't afford it to get it.

Obamacare is so much more than the individual mandate though. It will eliminate pre-existing conditions, meaning you will pay the same insurance rates no matter what your medical history is, making health insurance affordable for millions of Americans. It will give you more access to cheaper medications, make health insurance cheaper for lower and middle class Americans, remove limits to insurance usage and lower deductibles, allow kids to stay on their parents plans longer, the list goes on. This law is the single greatest thing to happen to the American people in years! If the republicans take it down, all that will happen is that the insurance companies will get richer, the American people will get poorer, and more people will die because they can't afford proper care.

"Obamacare" explained very well. via reddit.com This site sums up Obamacare very well.

Just my 2 cents on this issue. It's not my country, so I'm just making comments as an outside observer. I understand that my opinions might not be popular, but I strongly believe that health care should be a basic human right. I'm the guy that still doesn't understand how people could be against universal health care (Why should MY money pay for YOUR problems = I'm greedy and self-centered, and would rather you die than me pay more taxes).

 

Most people understand that, but they don't feel they should be forced to buy health insurance.

However, I just don't understand that. If you're in a car crash with no insurance. You're in the hospital for months and undergo a dozen surgeries.

Would you have rather paid for the insurance before or owe the hospital millions in hospital bills that you'll be paying off the rest of your life?

As someone who would be exempt from paying and fall under medicaid, due to having no job, I'm happy for this. I might actually be able to go to the doctor, which I haven't done since 2007. Even if I were to magically jump to an income bracket where I was forced to pay, I'd gladly do it, because of the above mentioned scenario or similar incidents that can occur unplanned.

 

Moral relativity and claims that executioners are no different from mass murderers all mixed into one. Nice. "Guys, guys the only real difference between mass murderers and everyone else is that those mass murderers have guts!"

You can reform the US prison and court system to be less "retributive" while still enjoying that little cherry.

If you were given the choice of life in prison or death you would choose life in prison in a second, don't kid youself.

 

Thank you so much for saying that with such beauty and eloquence, and more importantly impartialness (something i'm sure everyone has noticed i struggle with)

I'm in awe