# Vice Presidential Debate



## 7StringofAblicK (Oct 2, 2008)

Anyone watching this?

Who wants to talk about energy? Sarah Palin does - all night apparently. 

I'm sorry, but Biden is dominating.


----------



## Elysian (Oct 2, 2008)

the reason biden is dominating is because he's got lots to say. Palin is mastering the art of saying lots of words, but saying nothing at all.


----------



## Matt Crooks (Oct 2, 2008)

I tried to watch, but gave up. She refuses to answer any question.

Moderator "Sarah, how much is two plus two?"

Palin " Let me tell you about Alaska. In Alaska we have Moose. And Moose have antlers. And you can count antlers. But what really matters is Joe Six pack, and this two plus two we keep hearing about from Washington is not helping him. John McCain and I will reform two plus two, so that Main street benefits from it"

Moderator "You are Stupid."


----------



## Elysian (Oct 2, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> I tried to watch, but gave up. She refuses to answer any question.
> 
> Moderator "Sarah, how much is two plus two?"
> 
> ...



maybe she's doing this so she can cut it together and make a "visit alaska" commercial


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 2, 2008)

Jesus, she's a retard.

It's all I can say.


----------



## Matt Crooks (Oct 2, 2008)

NegaTiveXero said:


> Jesus, she's a retard.



You just insulted this guy:


----------



## 7StringofAblicK (Oct 2, 2008)

even the moderator has called her out on a few things when she hasn't stayed on topic.

In all fairness, Biden simply has more debate experience. Does that excuse any behavior? Certainly not, but it must be noted. 

With that said, I do agree more with what Biden has to say, but I don't think that puts a bias on anything; he's just doing a better job.


----------



## auxioluck (Oct 2, 2008)

I'm obviously gonna get flamed for saying anything, because I think Palin is doing pretty well.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 2, 2008)

Yeah, she's doing pretty well at saying everything that has nothing to do with the question at hand.


----------



## 7StringofAblicK (Oct 2, 2008)

auxioluck said:


> I'm obviously gonna get flamed for saying anything, because I think Palin is doing pretty well.



Not flamed.
I will note that she isn't crumbling completely, but she's certainly lacks the fire Biden is exhibiting. She's obviously nervous, she isn't as confident about her answers, and Biden is easily capitalizing on that.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 2, 2008)

Did she really just call Biden out for voting for the war and then being against it?


Bridge to Nowhere anyone?


----------



## Matt Crooks (Oct 2, 2008)

Palin is talking in such generalities that she can't be wrong. Of course, she's not answering any questions either.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 2, 2008)

Apparently, Palin's brother is a great teacher. That's all I got out what she just said.


----------



## atimoc (Oct 2, 2008)

She hasn't bombed, but listening to her constantly emphasize that gosh-darn-doggone Joe Sixpack maverick Washington-outsider role makes me cringe.


----------



## Matt Crooks (Oct 2, 2008)

We should have been playing debate drinking games. 

 it's not too late to start!


----------



## 7StringofAblicK (Oct 2, 2008)

Exactly! and it's sad that she just got 50,000 more votes because of ignorant moms out there eating doritos, upset that they are staying up later than their normal bed time to watch her. She's dipping into a demographic that not many people have before; good for her - bad for everything that lives


----------



## D-EJ915 (Oct 2, 2008)

it's not a debate, it's an infomercial, I seriously doubt the ability of either of these two to actually debate something


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 2, 2008)

Biden just almost made me cry there. Wow.

How do you respond to that? Oh yeah, avoid the actual question. Good job Palin.


----------



## Matt Crooks (Oct 2, 2008)

I will say this. Pailn in much, much hotter than Joe.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 2, 2008)

Not according to some people that were behind Chris Matthews before the debate.


----------



## Brendan G (Oct 2, 2008)

Palin is doing better than I expected, I anticipated Couric interview part 2, she dodged a few questions (one that I remember well is the question about Wall Street and regulating is, then she changed the subject to something else and then ran out of time.) But I agree that Biden is doing much better than Palin.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Oct 2, 2008)

I watched it on Fox News, so immediately afterwords I was confronted with four or five old conservatives with RAGING hard-ons for Palin claiming she "held her own" 

Basically, all I can say here is that these debates are not about personality or expertise. It's about issues. The purpose of these debates is to make the positions of the nominees clear to all Americans. 

And on that front, I personally think Biden dominated. The only area I disagreed with any notion that he had was on Israel. He made some comment referring Israel as a "peace-loving state" which is simply untrue when they murder hundreds of Palestinians a day using US-funded armaments.

It comes down to opinion and issues. And for me, the issues and platforms lean clearly to Obama/Biden


----------



## thadood (Oct 2, 2008)

Yeah. She didn't do bad, as in flopping. But she didn't make any clear points, imo. In fact, she dodged answers that she wasn't comfortable with the best she could.


----------



## Lee (Oct 2, 2008)

Biden was concise and direct, but Palin kept side stepping questions. Granted, she did perform better than I expected, but she came across as a nervous host of an infomercial, while Biden actually got to the point. He got her pretty hard on some counterpoints, especially that of the cause of global warming, as well as her insistence that we "shouldn't be looking back", and his counter of that was brilliant.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 2, 2008)

I think this debate made it painfully clear that she doesn't know the issues and doesn't have the experience needed to be a good vice president. That this was the best she could do even after a weeks worth of coaching is truly sad. Hopefully the American people can see though her facade and see her for what she is and is not.


----------



## lailer75 (Oct 2, 2008)

wow obama/biden don`t believe in gay marrige? thats fucking cold


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 2, 2008)

Yeah, I thought so too.

I think he wanted to say that he didn't believe it was up to the Government to decide what a marriage is and that it is the job of religion. However, that would have to apply to everyone including heterosexual unions if that was the case.

Homophobia is truly disgusting.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 3, 2008)

ILdÐÆMcº³;1233361 said:


> Yeah, I thought so too.
> 
> I think he wanted to say that he didn't believe it was up to the Government to decide what a marriage is and that it is the job of religion. However, that would have to apply to everyone including heterosexual unions if that was the case.
> 
> Homophobia is truly disgusting.





What kind of person doesnt want to legalize gay marriage? It basically means less competition...

In terms of the debate i just think Palin is a professional bullshitter


----------



## Elysian (Oct 3, 2008)

lailer75 said:


> wow obama/biden don`t believe in gay marrige? thats fucking cold



yet they believe in civil unions  they don't want to call the marriage of a same sex couple "marriage", its all semantics... none of the candidates believe in gay marriage, yet they believe in more rights for gay couples... just the "safe" position to take, imo.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 3, 2008)

Stealthtastic said:


> What kind of person doesnt want to legalize gay marriage? It basically means less competition...
> 
> In terms of the debate i just think Palin is a professional bullshitter



Yeah, less competition. But there are also lesbian couples which take two fine females out of the market. But that is negated by the fact that two girls kissing is hot as hell.


----------



## The Trooper (Oct 3, 2008)

To follow up on Matt's comment, yes...Palin is much hotter than Joe..."would."

It's important to remember that just because you don't personally support something, it doesn't mean that you're universally against it. Obama/Biden may not personally support gay marriage, but they're not telling people how to live their lives and they're fully recognizing the rights of those couples who do decide to marry. 

Palin did what she needed to do tonight. She held her own enough to get morale back on track for her base and knock the media off the "she's not qualified" banter for a while. She didn't have to "wow," so mission accomplished. Obviously (IMO), Biden did much better...but Palin did what was necessary. 

P.S. - For crying aloud, please stop saying nu-cu-lar.


----------



## DDDorian (Oct 3, 2008)

*The enemy's dangerous, but right now you're worse than the enemy: you're dangerous and foolish. You may not like the guys flying with you, they may not like you. But whose side are you on?*


----------



## HaGGuS (Oct 3, 2008)

Every time that woman speaks.. a little of my mind implodes.
So please America, do not vote McCain/Palin.
For the sake of my mind.


----------



## Variant (Oct 3, 2008)

Elysian said:


> yet they believe in civil unions  they don't want to call the marriage of a same sex couple "marriage", its all semantics... none of the candidates believe in gay marriage, yet they believe in more rights for gay couples... just the "safe" position to take, imo.



Exactly, 'separate but equal', because *that* worked out so well for the previous minority's stake for equality.  Fucking irony to the extreme, in my opinion. "Hey Mr. Obama, you're right, marriage for straights and civil unions for gays is a great idea, by the way, you have to drink out of this water fountain labeled blacks only!"


----------



## Scali (Oct 3, 2008)

lailer75 said:


> wow obama/biden don`t believe in gay marrige? thats fucking cold


 
Wow!
That's unfathomable to me, from the country that 'invented' gay marriage. We've had it since 2001.
Many other countries have followed... You're quite behind the times if you're still against it in 2008.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Oct 3, 2008)

I watched as much of it as I could before I conked out, which was actually most of it! First late one I've pulled in a while 

Anyway, it was interesting. I don't think Palin is ready for this - not by a long shot. Yes she did better than people were expecting, but still not great. And I hope people don't lose sight of that. So much of the substance of the debate could get lost in the spectacle of the 'hockey mom vs the senator', and I think that's maybe something the Republicans are counting on. "Hey, she didnt' answer the question...but look how spunky and new she is at this!". It's not the point. 

I do wish Biden hadn't spent quite so much energy attacking McCain, though. Extolling the virtues of your policy purely through the shortcomings of the other guys isn't a good idea, IMO. For a campaign so focused on change and hope, it'd be a shame to lose that message in too much negativity and dwelling on past mistakes. 

Anyone else notice his sighing? Properly cracked me up. Like *HUFFFFF* "God......dammit". Probably not the wisest of moves. 

And holding back the tears...almost made me implode with awkwardness.

Still. His debate. I thought. Just about.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 3, 2008)

Scali said:


> Wow!
> That's unfathomable to me, from the country that 'invented' gay marriage. We've had it since 2001.
> Many other countries have followed... You're quite behind the times if you're still against it in 2008.



Well, I kind of agree with that stance. If gay marriage is against someone's religion, how can you force someone in that religion to perform that ceremony with a gay couple? I mean if it's not against that religion, all the power to them. Civil unions would give them all the legal rights that married couples have at least. 

It's not that I'm "against" gay marriage, I'm just against trying to force something on someone based on a moral or religious stance, that's what Christians try to do all the time, and while it would be ironic to force gay marriage upon them, I don't feel that the government should have that right.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 3, 2008)

^  but additionally, I don't think the government should have any right to make decisions on the subject of gay marriage or religion for that matter. It shouldn't even be a topic of debate.


----------



## Jachop (Oct 3, 2008)

I've watched parts of this... I find both of them disgusting politically - but man, at least Biden knows his stuff.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 3, 2008)

I haven't been able to watch the debates, but I'm sure to see snippets on the news, but seriously what is this "Joe Six Pack" B/S, is she trying to banter to drunken rednecks? 

I won't be happy until a seccessionist runs for office.


----------



## Scali (Oct 3, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Well, I kind of agree with that stance. If gay marriage is against someone's religion, how can you force someone in that religion to perform that ceremony with a gay couple? I mean if it's not against that religion, all the power to them. Civil unions would give them all the legal rights that married couples have at least.


 
In our country, I believe that civil servants (or whatever you call the people performing the marriage) have the right to refuse a gay marriage.
However, this has no effect on the gay marriage itself. The marriage is still possible, it will just have to be performed by a civil servant who doesn't refuse.
Basically it's up to city hall to determine whether or not they hire civil servants that refuse gay marriage.
One could say that if you have such strong religious feelings, you're in the wrong line of work.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> It's not that I'm "against" gay marriage, I'm just against trying to force something on someone based on a moral or religious stance, that's what Christians try to do all the time, and while it would be ironic to force gay marriage upon them, I don't feel that the government should have that right.


 
I think it's a very delicate issue. A marriage is a legal bond, it has nothing to do with religion in itself. The modern Western world (apparently not the USA) tries to keep church and government/legislation completely separate. Therefore we cannot make something illegal because a certain religion is opposed to it. We are not allowed to base any kind of law on a religious stance.

I believe gay marriage is also legal in Canada?


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 3, 2008)

Scali, the common marriage rites came out of religion, so there is a tie there. I don't dissagree with you though.


----------



## Scali (Oct 3, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Scali, the common marriage rites came out of religion, so there is a tie there. I don't dissagree with you though.


 
Perhaps, but even in olden days, marriage was often seen as a business contract. It had less to do with love or religion than it does today, I suppose.
But in today's Western world, marriage is an official legal status, which has impact on various legal issues, such as taxes. It is not tied to religion, and shouldn't be. People who aren't religious, also marry.

So I'd say there WAS a tie in the past, but there is none in the present.. or at least, there could be. You can also marry for your church (which has no legal consequences). Religious people marry twice here, once in city hall, once in church.


----------



## Zepp88 (Oct 3, 2008)

Again, agreed, but it's a much different mindset here for one reason or another, we are just like the stuffy British royalty of the 1700s we sought to escape. It's not good but it's the truth, we're nothing like Europe.


----------



## Thomas (Oct 3, 2008)

Scali said:


> A marriage is a legal bond, it has nothing to do with religion in itself. The modern Western world (apparently not the USA) tries to keep church and government/legislation completely separate.


Scali is spot-on here - this issue has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. If a church does not want to facilitate such a marriage, that is their business. If it goes against their belief system, they certainly shouldn't permit it within their church.

However, as pointed out above, an arrangement acknowledged by a religious authority is not the same as legal marriage. When referring to gay marriage, it means the latter. I think neither the federal government nor the state should decide which gender combinations are valid for legal marriage, and which are not.

Unfortunately, there is a strong religious bias in American politics, people (primarily conservatives/Republicans) who feel it's their job to force their belief system on everyone else and rob others of their freedom.


----------



## Scali (Oct 3, 2008)

Thomas said:


> Scali is spot-on here - this issue has nothing to do with religion whatsoever. If a church does not want to facilitate such a marriage, that is their business. If it goes against their belief system, they certainly shouldn't permit it within their church.


 
Yes, I'm not sure if it's the same in every part of the world, but over here, the people of the church do not have the legal authority to perform a legal marriage. So it is purely a 'marriage before God', and means nothing to the state. The state also has little control over what a religious marriage is about.



Thomas said:


> However, as pointed out above, an arrangement acknowledged by a religious authority is not the same as legal marriage. When referring to gay marriage, it means the latter. I think neither the federal government nor the state should decide which gender combinations are valid for legal marriage, and which are not.


 
Exactly. What gays want is simply to be treated equally by the state as a regular married couple. The same rights (which could be an issue when wanting to adopt children for example). They probably don't care about religion at all, because I don't know of any religion that approves of homosexuality in the first place, making homosexuals religious outcasts by default.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 3, 2008)

I guess it's arguing semantics at this point, because I think that when a "marriage" is performed by a judge or a civil servant, it's called a "civil union" and not an actual marriage. To me, a civil union is getting all the legal rights of a "married" couple. I believe a marriage is the actual religious AND legal bond that 2 people share. 

So basically, we believe the same thing, since I don't think gay people should be denied the right to have some kind of union and all the benefits (and headaches and bullshit ) that arise from marriage. I would just call it a "civil union" where you would still call that marriage, even though there is no religious implication when you use the term.

My point is is that they shouldn't be allowed to force a priest or someone in a religious institution to perform a ceremony on the gay couple if it's against their religion. That would basically be like forcing a jew to eat ham or some shit


----------



## Thomas (Oct 3, 2008)

I am watching the debate from last night, and Biden made it clear that he and Obama support same-sex benefits, and that there will be no "constitutional or legal distinction between heterosexual and same-sex couples" (paraphrased). However, he said that he does not support "redefining marriage from a civil side" (paraphrased), and answered no the the question about whether he supports gay marriage.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> I guess it's arguing semantics at this point, because I think that when a "marriage" is performed by a judge or a civil servant, it's called a "civil union" and not an actual marriage. To me, a civil union is getting all the legal rights of a "married" couple. I believe a marriage is the actual religious AND legal bond that 2 people share.
> 
> So basically, we believe the same thing, since I don't think gay people should be denied the right to have some kind of union and all the benefits (and headaches and bullshit ) that arise from marriage. I would just call it a "civil union" where you would still call that marriage, even though there is no religious implication when you use the term.
> 
> My point is is that they shouldn't be allowed to force a priest or someone in a religious institution to perform a ceremony on the gay couple if it's against their religion. That would basically be like forcing a jew to eat ham or some shit


Agreed. Semantics is what it is, same thing I said above. I used the term marriage because the definition I read said it could be either legal, religious or both.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 3, 2008)

Okay, then I guess fundamentally, we're all in agreement, kind of  But the first thing most people think of when you say marriage is in a church. It sounds like Obama/Biden are basically trying to say what I'm saying, they support the legal rights of those couples to a legal union, but they aren't going to fuck with the church, because that will basically fuck them over with a lot of voters


----------



## HighGain510 (Oct 3, 2008)

One word that can summarize Palin's entire side of the debate? ENERGY! OMG if I heard her say that one more time I was going to scream. She reminds me of a parrot....


----------



## Scali (Oct 3, 2008)

These are presidential candidates, so this is the government/state side of things, legislation and all that.
So when they discuss marriage, it is always from that point of view, and has very little to do with the religious side of things. The government has no control over religion. You have to run for pope or something if you want to change how the church sees gay marriage 

Also, a 'civil union' is not exactly the same as a marriage. At least, it wasn't with us. We had a civil union between same-sex couples for years before we had an official gay marriage. It was a 'registered partnership', which was not entirely the same as a proper marriage, legally speaking. But it was a first step in the state recognizing that two people were living together.
Thing is, it's exactly what gay couples do NOT want. They don't want to be the exception to the rule, with a special kind of 'almost marriage'. They just want a proper marriage, nothing special.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 3, 2008)

Scali said:


> These are presidential candidates, so this is the government/state side of things, legislation and all that.
> So when they discuss marriage, it is always from that point of view, and has very little to do with the religious side of things. The government has no control over religion. You have to run for pope or something if you want to change how the church sees gay marriage



So we're in agreement then, I just kind of took it one step further and looked at it from the other side 

But then again, this is the US, with religious fanatics in government, so you can sure bet a lot of government people look at it from the religious side as well, as well as a big chunk of the voters.


----------



## YYZ2112 (Oct 3, 2008)

lailer75 said:


> wow obama/biden don`t believe in gay marrige? thats fucking cold



There is no way in hell either candidate this close to the election is about to open this can of worms. While Im all for same sex marriage, I just think that now is not the time to make this an issue. I think the next president is going to have their hands full with the major economy issues that face this country and of course getting our troops out of Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan along with a thousand other major issues.

As for the debate itself, its what I expected for the most part. I think Palin did a little better than expected even though she didnt answer a single question. Biden did well and didnt make any major blunders. He was much more precise in his answers and didnt attack Palin but rather took his jabs at McCain which I think was exactly what he needed to do. Palin seemed to be reading a prepared answer every time she spoke with a robotic vibe. I didnt believe anything she said and she never really addressed a question directly. It always some how came back to energy and lowering taxes because thats what creates jobs. And the Joe Six-pack, hockey mom, golly gee Joe, the winking and all the other phony talk and presence was just ridiculous. 

Over all I cant see how McCain will gain any points with her performance. Maybe she stopped the bleeding but thats about it.


----------



## auxioluck (Oct 3, 2008)

Can I also point out that she's only been playing the White House Game for a little over a month? I'm getting really tired of the "no experience" stuff.

Seriously, look at Harry Truman. He came in as a local politician with NO experience in National Politics, was LAUGHED AT by the public during the race, and became VP, later President, because no one knew about Roosevelt's health issues. And now he's considered one of the best presidents in history. 

At least Palin has been the mayor and governor (by a popular margin) of a very energy-influential state.

She talks about energy a lot because that what she knows. I don't think you could be married to a guy that works for an oil company, be a governor, and NOT know about oil and energy. Especially when your own state is being looked at for drilling. (Which, by the way will not take place in wildlife areas or reserves, but on a section of the coast that looks as barren as Mars where there is no wildlife.) 

I'm just saying, I don't have a hard on for either one of them, but I give credit where credit is due. Yes, she failed to answer a couple questions, but so did Biden. What disappoints me the most is that this debate was more coherent and straightforward than the presidential debate. The debate between Obama and McCain was like 2 children arguing over who knocked over their grandmother's urn.

*Enters flame suit and prepares for neg rep*


----------



## Christopher (Oct 3, 2008)

She wasn't as bad as I had pictured she would be but that bar was REALLY low. By the end of it I could almost guess all the talking points the Rep's had been briefing her on. My greatest fear is that Joe and Jane average out there aren't really seeing the issues and their stances (or lack of stances) and are falling for the sales pitches.

I did love how she jumped on Biden every time he criticized W. but couldn't or wouldn't name one specific thing separating McCain and W.


----------



## DDDorian (Oct 3, 2008)

This about sums it up:

YouTube - CNN VP debate analyzed



chimp_spanner said:


> Anyone else notice his sighing? Properly cracked me up. Like *HUFFFFF* "God......dammit". Probably not the wisest of moves.



Heh, I picked up on that too. You could tell it was all he could do to hold back and keep from going all BIDEN SMASH on her folksy arse. As badly as it could have played out, I really wish he did, partly so there'd be absolutely no way anyone could claim she performed even competently and partly because she deserved it for that incessant winking


----------



## somn (Oct 3, 2008)

didint the dems promise alot when they took over congress poleose went on saying they were going to pass alot of things for the economy on the first week. when cnn did there check up a week later congress went on vacay?? 
i see them as no diff plus its hard to belive anything obama given his record wish there were more options than obama or macain


----------



## Christopher (Oct 3, 2008)

DDDorian said:


> This about sums it up:
> 
> YouTube - CNN VP debate analyzed
> 
> ...



I definitely think they had Biden on a leash. I couldn't tell you if that was a good idea or not in the long run but there were times that I was like, "here it comes" and he just went in easy. I think the Dem's strategy was to give her enough rope to hang herself.


----------



## The Trooper (Oct 3, 2008)

Christopher said:


> I definitely think they had Biden on a leash. I couldn't tell you if that was a good idea or not in the long run but there were times that I was like, "here it comes" and he just went in easy. I think the Dem's strategy was to give her enough rope to hang herself.


 
I think it was a good idea. Obama has now taken a comfortable lead and is pulling away in the polls. The VP debate hardly ever influences an election, and this one is no different...unless someone went in there and completely crashed and burned or pissed off a voting block. 

All Biden had to do was go in, speak the facts, and walk out with the campaign on cruise control and a lead going into the home stretch to the election. Any "risky" comments or moments from him would have just been plain stupid given current circumstances and polls. 

It's like being up by 3 in the 4th with the ball on your own 20 and the 2 minute warning coming close. Why the hell would you risk passing? Just run the ball, try to convert a first down or two, and run out the clock to win the game.


----------



## Vegetta (Oct 3, 2008)

NegaTiveXero said:


> Yeah, she's doing pretty well at saying everything that has nothing to do with the question at hand.



Well tbh that is what Obama does and you guys eat it up Om nom nom  

McCain does it also...all politicians do it that is why debates are pretty pointless



somn said:


> didint the dems promise alot when they took over congress poleose went on saying they were going to pass alot of things for the economy on the first week. when cnn did there check up a week later congress went on vacay??
> i see them as no diff plus its hard to belive anything obama given his record wish there were more options than obama or macain




Yup first it was "Once we have the majority we will change everything" and then they changed nothing...

Election year or no - The dems are too afraid of bad press to change anything


----------



## Jachop (Oct 3, 2008)

Vegetta said:


> Well tbh that is what Obama does and you guys eat it up Om nom nom
> 
> McCain does it also...all politicians do it that is why debates are pretty pointless



Ehm... No? Well, I mean yes, that happens a lot, but there are politicians out there that isn't afraid of voicing their true opinion.


----------



## Cancer (Oct 3, 2008)

7StringofAblicK said:


> Not flamed.
> I will note that she isn't crumbling completely, but she's certainly lacks the fire Biden is exhibiting. She's obviously nervous, she isn't as confident about her answers, and Biden is easily capitalizing on that.




She didn't get crushed as much as was expected, for that she has my respect, but it would have been nice if she stuck to the questions.



lailer75 said:


> wow obama/biden don`t believe in gay marrige? thats fucking cold




No, what I got from that is that they don't believe the word "marriage" should not be applied to same sex unions. I remember both Biden and Palin saying that they had no issue with same sex unions, and that they should be afforded the same rights as married couples, but that the definition of "marriage" should not be expanded past "man + women".

Personally I don't see what the issue is, its just a word for crissakes.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 3, 2008)

Prejudice is just a word too.


----------



## Drew (Oct 3, 2008)

Matt Crooks said:


> We should have been playing debate drinking games.
> 
> it's not too late to start!



We were, actually. Everytime she said "maverick," we drank. We drank a lot last night.  

Short answer is, Biden dominated from a content perspective (he actually answered most of the questions he was asked), Palin probably won on a style level (she actually got away with dodging every single question leveled at her) and I'm calling it a draw. 

Also, who expected _Biden_ to be the one to sucessfully play the sexism card?


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 3, 2008)

Scali said:


> They don't want to be the exception to the rule, with a special kind of 'almost marriage'. They just want a proper marriage, nothing special.



And there is the rub.....if "marriage" is nothing special then why is having *it* such a big issue? You can say it's the rights but that can come through a civil union as well. All the candidates said basically the same thing there.

It really IS about semantics. People have formed an impression of what they're definition of the word "marriage" is and they are very resistant to changing it. In many cases it may not even be an idealistic argument as much as it is simply that they do not wish to shake the foundations of their own understanding. 

"I thought I knew what 'marriage' meant" 

The big problem is that the "traditional" definition has slipped it's way into legislation and that is why some people are adamant that it be called a "marriage". It's to assure that they really do get the same rights and privileges. The neo-cons unfortunately tend to view the thoughts of the word 'marriage' being used to refer to anything other than a man and woman as a sacrilege.

Of course there are "conservative gays" that insist the word 'marriage' be used as well because they hold the same sanctimonious meaning of the word. 

If everyone could just agree that "civil union" truly means the same thing this raging debate could mostly go away.


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 3, 2008)

Drew said:


> I'm calling it a draw.



I'd have to give it to Biden. I just can't get over the fact that Pallin never really said much of anything at all. Sure she's more attractive than Biden but I want some content dammit. 



Drew said:


> Also, who expected _Biden_ to be the one to sucessfully play the sexism card?



I believe that choke was both genuine and brilliant all at the same time.


----------



## Drew (Oct 3, 2008)

BigM555 said:


> And there is the rub.....if "marriage" is nothing special then why is having *it* such a big issue? You can say it's the rights but that can come through a civil union as well. All the candidates said basically the same thing there.



That's the thing. I know I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said here before, but this issue is purely about a religious definition of marriage vs. a civil definition of marriage, and honestly the religious one has no place in the code of law. 

I'm not sure what the best way to resolve this - define marraige as a "civil union" between two consenting adults? Remove the word "marraige" from legal discourse and replace it entirely with civil union? - but we need to stop considering the religious connotations of the term when discussing the legal and civil ones.


BigM555 said:


> I'd have to give it to Biden. I just can't get over the fact that Pallin never really said much of anything at all. Sure she's more attractive than Biden but I want some content dammit.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that choke was both genuine and brilliant all at the same time.



Again though, she pulled it off. There's no major media backlash, the moderator didn't push her much (ironically, the fact she was writing a book about Obama and black politicians worked in Palin's favor here as she had to be overly cautious of seeming unbiased), and she dodged every single tough question. The tradeoff was Biden made a good number of direct hits on McCain that Palin couldn't answer because she was too busy talkiing about nothing. 

And I know - it's a little scary, isn't it?


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 3, 2008)

I'm surprised that the media hasn't jumped on her statement about wanting to expand the role of the VP (executive or legislative I'm not sure which she was referring to).

I agree she didn't completely blow it but she also didn't strike me as the kind of person I'd consider a "leader". I don't disagree that she can *relate* to "the common man" but there is a difference between the kind of people you sit down and drink with and those you entrust national security, health care, education and the economy to.

It's probably no small coincidence that many politicians are lawyers. Yup, I'd rather not sit down and have a few beers and chat with most lawyers I've ever met (there are exceptions) but when I need legal advice I don't look to my local troop of beer buddies either.

Im just sayin'.


----------



## Scali (Oct 3, 2008)

BigM555 said:


> And there is the rub.....if "marriage" is nothing special then why is having *it* such a big issue?


 
You're twisting my words.
I didn't say marriage itself is special, I said that this 'civil union' or 'registered partnership' is a special almost-but-not-quite-marriage thing.
They don't want that, they want a proper marriage, no special cases, exceptions or anything.
If someone asks them "Are you married?", they just want to answer with a "Yes", not with a "Well, sorta... but not really... and you can't call it that, it's called a civil union". How romantic.
In fact, that's the whole point of discrimination... Different rules for different types of people. In a way it's no different than saying that only white people can get married. Black people can only join in 'civil union'. Does that clarify how this is discriminating? Everyone just wants to be treated equal.



BigM555 said:


> It really IS about semantics. People have formed an impression of what they're definition of the word "marriage" is and they are very resistant to changing it. In many cases it may not even be an idealistic argument as much as it is simply that they do not wish to shake the foundations of their own understanding.


 
It just shows how conservative the US is, how they aren't willing to change their way of thinking in any way. In other countries (even one just north of the US) marriages have been extended (which I think is a better term than 'redefined' in this case) to include same-sex couples, no problem. Why can't the US do that?



BigM555 said:


> If everyone could just agree that "civil union" truly means the same thing this raging debate could mostly go away.


 
If it really was the same, why would you not call it the same? Just call both a marriage. I'm quite sure if you were to tell all married couples that they have to refer to their marriage only as a "civil union" from now on, they won't like it either.


----------



## Drew (Oct 3, 2008)

Scali said:


> It just shows how conservative the US is, how they aren't willing to change their way of thinking in any way. In other countries (even one just north of the US) marriages have been extended (which I think is a better term than 'redefined' in this case) to include same-sex couples, no problem. Why can't the US do that?
> 
> 
> 
> If it really was the same, why would you not call it the same? Just call both a marriage. I'm quite sure if you were to tell all married couples that they have to refer to their marriage only as a "civil union" from now on, they won't like it either.



This is a little unfair, IMO. 

The problem is, "marriage" is a word with very specific religious connotations, and it's well known that there are large sections of the united states with strongly religious demographic makeups. So, for these people, it's not a question about civil rights - it's a question about the State trying to change the way the Church can do it's job. To be perfectly fair, if you accept their premise that marraige is a religious institution, I agree with them. 

So, in that case, the only rational thing to do is to question the premise, and re-define marraige from a legal/civic standpoint as a purely _secular_ covenant. Which, if you think about it, is as it should be; there should be separation of church and state. This is sort of the same argument the religious groups are making - "the state can't tell us how we can worship!" - but they're missing the fact it's a double-edged sword, and that from this it also follows that the church can't tell the state how it should govern. 

So, the cleanest solution is again to make it very clear that "marriage" from the perspective of the American code of law is a very different thing than it is from the perspective of any religious group. If this means calling it something else, then so be it. I would argue that a willingness to do away with the traditional terms would show the United States to be MORE liberal than a country that couldn't bring itself to do so, to be perfectly honest. Either way, the concept of "marriage" as somehow both a state and a religious covenant is something that _has_ to go away.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Oct 3, 2008)

i keep hearing people say she pulled it off.

`If everyone is watching to see if she makes a complete idiot of herself, its obviously because she had her first rodeo. I dont think not making an idiot of yourself is any reason for appaluse. 

No one expected biden to choke because he is a long time politician, shes a noob.

hes qualified, shes a cardboard cut out reading cards


----------



## Holy Katana (Oct 3, 2008)

I'm fairly sure that Palin's performance at the debate changed a great deal of people's opinions about her. At first, only a few people at my school said anything negative about her. Today, the Palin jokes didn't stop.


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 3, 2008)

Scali said:


> You're twisting my words.



Nope, not trying to spin at all. Simply offering the perspective of "the masses" as I interpret it.



Scali said:


> If someone asks them "Are you married?", they just want to answer with a "Yes", not with a "Well, sorta... but not really... and you can't call it that, it's called a civil union". How romantic.



I would think that if anyone could break free of the shackles of societal paradigms it would be that portion of the population that has already accepted, embraced and now seeks to institutionalize their alternative lifestyle choice. If someone asks a gay couple that have entered a so called civil union there is nothing, IMO, that prevents them from answering an emphatic "YES". Failure to do so would suggest that they also attach that "special" meaning to the word. It's just a word.



Scali said:


> It just shows how conservative the US is, how they aren't willing to change their way of thinking in any way. In other countries (even one just north of the US) marriages have been extended (which I think is a better term than 'redefined' in this case) to include same-sex couples, no problem. Why can't the US do that?



As Drew already eluded to.....it's called the Bible Belt. 



Scali said:


> If it really was the same, why would you not call it the same?



That's what I was trying to explain in the previous post. I don't hold those views but I understand where they come from and why consensus will remain elusive.



Scali said:


> I'm quite sure if you were to tell all married couples that they have to refer to their marriage only as a "civil union" from now on, they won't like it either.



I'm "married", though I'm not religious so personally I could give fuck.  My wife and I actually went out of our way to NOT include any religion in our ceremony. Unfortunately, the only "official" we were able to hire was a retired minister who insisted on including some. We agreed simply because it meant little to us though I still find it mildly offensive that a person would choose to impose their own beliefs on another after being politely asked not to. The episode did little to increase my admiration for those that subscribe to organized religion.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Oct 4, 2008)

ILdÐÆMcº³;1233418 said:


> Yeah, less competition. But there are also lesbian couples which take two fine females out of the market. But that is negated by the fact that two girls kissing is hot as hell.



Yes, but whens the last time you saw a hot lesbian outside of pronz. I know 5-9 lesbians and none of them are attractive.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Oct 4, 2008)

Ha, sucks to be you. I've met plenty of hot lesbians.


----------



## Azathoth43 (Oct 4, 2008)

If she knows so much about energy, why didn't she tell the truth about the oil in ANWR?



Zepp88 said:


> I won't be happy until a secessionist runs for office.



Well her husband belongs (or belonged anyway) to a group that wants Alaska to secede from th US.


----------



## Scali (Oct 4, 2008)

Drew said:


> This is a little unfair, IMO.
> 
> The problem is, "marriage" is a word with very specific religious connotations, and it's well known that there are large sections of the united states with strongly religious demographic makeups. So, for these people, it's not a question about civil rights - it's a question about the State trying to change the way the Church can do it's job. To be perfectly fair, if you accept their premise that marraige is a religious institution, I agree with them.


 
Well, I hate to say, but these people simply don't have a clue about what marriage is to the government, state, law and that sort of thing.
Church and state *are* separated in the US. Why does the general public not know that? It sounds like the ignorance of the people is forcing the government to side-step issues like gay marriage because of the people's misconception of what a marriage is.



Drew said:


> So, the cleanest solution is again to make it very clear that "marriage" from the perspective of the American code of law is a very different thing than it is from the perspective of any religious group.


 
Which is unfair to those who aren't religious, and ofcourse to the gay couples who want to be married in particular. It's downright discriminating.
I'm sorry, but this mentality died out well over 50 years ago in Western Europe. The US is way behind the times and something needs to be done about that.
I think it would actually be a good step in the "war against terrorism" if the US would stop seeing (and presenting) itself as a Christian nation.



Drew said:


> I would argue that a willingness to do away with the traditional terms would show the United States to be MORE liberal than a country that couldn't bring itself to do so, to be perfectly honest.


 
Wrong again. In most countries the 'civil union' was a first step to a full gay marriage. The fact that other countries have alraedy taken this step years ago, and some have actually fully accepted gay marriage shows that the US isn't as liberal as they might think they are.



Drew said:


> Either way, the concept of "marriage" as somehow both a state and a religious covenant is something that _has_ to go away.


 
Sounds like the people of the US just need to be educated. It's basically the same thing as with slavery/discrimination of blacks.
The US was well behind Western European countries there aswell. People simply accepted discrimination of blacks until the 1950s. Again, the US isn't as liberal as they think it is. The mentality in the US is at least 25 years behind on Western Europe.
Things like racism, religion, abortion, gay marriage and all that haven't been an issue over here for years.
Sure there are still religious groups that are against that sort of thing, but they can't make a difference, because they're not the voice of the majority.
In a way it scares me that religion is the voice of the majority in the US. That's the dark ages! A Christian version of those middle-eastern Muslim states, where law is dictated by whatever is in the Book of God.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 4, 2008)

Scali said:


> Sounds like the people of the US just need to be educated. It's basically the same thing as with slavery/discrimination of blacks.
> The US was well behind Western European countries there aswell. People simply accepted discrimination of blacks until the 1950s. Again, the US isn't as liberal as they think it is. The mentality in the US is at least 25 years behind on Western Europe.
> Things like racism, religion, abortion, gay marriage and all that haven't been an issue over here for years.
> Sure there are still religious groups that are against that sort of thing, but they can't make a difference, because they're not the voice of the majority.
> In a way it scares me that religion is the voice of the majority in the US. That's the dark ages! A Christian version of those middle-eastern Muslim states, where law is dictated by whatever is in the Book of God.



What I don't think you get is that these groups are the majority in some states. I live in the Southern US and these people run everything by religion. It isn't right but they do. These are also the majority of people who vote in this region as well (unfortunately). When you add up all of the small electoral votes that each Southern state gets you realize that their antiquated ideas can impact national policies in a big way.

Yes that may be the dark ages but you are not going to convince these people to believe or vote in any other way.


----------



## Scali (Oct 4, 2008)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> What I don't think you get is that these groups are the majority in some states. I live in the Southern US and these people run everything by religion. It isn't right but they do. These are also the majority of people who vote in this region as well (unfortunately). When you add up all of the small electoral votes that each Southern state gets you realize that their antiquated ideas can impact national policies in a big way.
> 
> Yes that may be the dark ages but you are not going to convince these people to believe or vote in any other way.


 
Depends on how you mean "get". I am aware of the fact that this is how certain parts of the US think yes. I just don't understand how people can be this 'backwards'. I don't "get" people being brainwashed by religion in 2008, at least not in a modern 'free' society like the US, with free access to all kinds of sources of information.

What's even more confusing is that it's different from state to state. Some states have already accepted gay marriage or abortion.
Now I can understand that some states are quicker with such issues than others, but to find some states with fierce opposition to such issues, that's just wrong. They should at least be discussing it, and be on the way to get it accepted... but even politicians seem to be against it, and would rather outlaw it in those few states that have accepted it.


----------



## Naren (Oct 4, 2008)

Scali said:


> Depends on how you mean "get". I am aware of the fact that this is how certain parts of the US think yes. I just don't understand how people can be this 'backwards'. I don't "get" people being brainwashed by religion in 2008, at least not in a modern 'free' society like the US, with free access to all kinds of sources of information.
> 
> What's even more confusing is that it's different from state to state. Some states have already accepted gay marriage or abortion.
> Now I can understand that some states are quicker with such issues than others, but to find some states with fierce opposition to such issues, that's just wrong. They should at least be discussing it, and be on the way to get it accepted... but even politicians seem to be against it, and would rather outlaw it in those few states that have accepted it.



Do you "get" how some countries in Africa and the Middle East are still living close to the same way they were 1000 or 2000 years, despite it being 2008 right now? You could say that every country in Africa should have electricity for all the citizens, socialized welfare for everyone, and decent jobs, but the reality is different.

I do not find it unusual at all that people are influenced by religion in 2008. I think there will still be a lot of people influenced by religion in 3008. Maybe not the same religions as now and maybe not as many people, but religion is a natural thing for human beings.

If you cannot get it, then you need to open your mind to the reality of how the world is. You're acting like the US needs to "get with the rest of the world," but the truth is the huge majority of the world is religious (whether that be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or whatever) and the majority of those religions are against homosexuality (Buddhism has never had a problem with homosexuality in most countries it's in, but most countries that are prodominantly Buddhist do not have "marriages" for gay couples because "marriage" for the most part is defined as being between a man and a woman. Countries that allow it simply change the definition of marriage). 

Reality and one's ideals rarely match up.


----------



## atimoc (Oct 4, 2008)

I know that the expectations were low, but how the hell is it possible that still (according to CNN poll) 36% of people thought she won the debate? I think it's a bit disturbing that more than one third of people couldn't see past the winks and hockey mom antics that her comments had a memorized feel to them, and more importantly, they lacked substance that was relevant to the questions. Come on, you can't just turn every discussion point back to energy and get away with it...


----------



## Scali (Oct 4, 2008)

Naren said:


> Do you "get" how some countries in Africa and the Middle East are still living close to the same way they were 1000 or 2000 years, despite it being 2008 right now? You could say that every country in Africa should have electricity for all the citizens, socialized welfare for everyone, and decent jobs, but the reality is different.
> 
> I do not find it unusual at all that people are influenced by religion in 2008. I think there will still be a lot of people influenced by religion in 3008. Maybe not the same religions as now and maybe not as many people, but religion is a natural thing for human beings.


 
I think you skipped over the part where I said "at least not in a modern 'free' society like the US, with free access to all kinds of sources of information."
Most of that doesn't apply to most of Africa.
Ironically enough, South Africa has a fully legal gay marriage.



Naren said:


> If you cannot get it, then you need to open your mind to the reality of how the world is. You're acting like the US needs to "get with the rest of the world," but the truth is the huge majority of the world is religious (whether that be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, or whatever) and the majority of those religions are against homosexuality (Buddhism has never had a problem with homosexuality in most countries it's in, but most countries that are prodominantly Buddhist do not have "marriages" for gay couples because "marriage" for the most part is defined as being between a man and a woman. Countries that allow it simply change the definition of marriage).
> 
> Reality and one's ideals rarely match up.


 
Again you seem to confuse marriage and religion. The rest of your argument is therefore irrelevant.
The point is not that any religion should accept gay marriage. Religion has nothing to do with it. The point is that two men or women can be married in the legitimate sense, with the same rights and benefits as a man and woman, as far as the state is concerned.
Everyone who still doesn't get what a marriage is, please read this before posting again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Oct 4, 2008)

atimoc said:


> I know that the expectations were low, but how the hell is it possible that still (according to CNN poll) 36% of people thought she won the debate? I think it's a bit disturbing that more than one third of people couldn't see past the winks and hockey mom antics that her comments had a memorized feel to them, and more importantly, they lacked substance that was relevant to the questions. Come on, you can't just turn every discussion point back to energy and get away with it...



EX-FUCKING-ZACTLY!!!!!!


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 5, 2008)

I watched it last night (I had night class during the actual debate, but 'twas taped) with a friend, and I said to him, "if she says 'energy-producing state" one more time. . . !" Then, twenty minutes later she said, "well, Alaska, soccer moms, joe six pack... we're an energy-producing state!" 

But I was disappointed; I wanted to see her get _destroyed_. 

Also, this conjures terrible recollections of when we learned about the Nixon/Kennedy debates in A.P. Gov't, and those who heard it on the radio though Nixon won, but those who watched it on T.V. though Kennedy won because he looked better. 



atimoc said:


>



 awesome, now just do that with Neo stopping the bullets with a gesture, but have "energy-producing state" as a force-field.


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Oct 6, 2008)

Scali said:


> Depends on how you mean "get". I am aware of the fact that this is how certain parts of the US think yes. I just don't understand how people can be this 'backwards'. I don't "get" people being brainwashed by religion in 2008, at least not in a modern 'free' society like the US, with free access to all kinds of sources of information.
> 
> What's even more confusing is that it's different from state to state. Some states have already accepted gay marriage or abortion.
> Now I can understand that some states are quicker with such issues than others, but to find some states with fierce opposition to such issues, that's just wrong. They should at least be discussing it, and be on the way to get it accepted... but even politicians seem to be against it, and would rather outlaw it in those few states that have accepted it.




What I mean by "get" is being able to realize that there are some people who don't always see things past their religious beliefs. That doesn't just apply to the US either. I understand that you don't think that religion should have any bearing on the government of a country, and I have to say that I agree with you on that. I was just saying that no matter how wrong anyone thinks it is, it is still going to happen. People are still going to be influenced by their religious beliefs because religion usually holds are large priority in the lives of those who practice it. That being said I think it is a little unfair to say that these people are "brainwashed". You may not agree with what they stand for but you are showing just as much intolerance as they are when you chalk up their beliefs to being incapable to think for themselves.


----------



## Scali (Oct 6, 2008)

I think religion is pretty much the definition of "not being able to think for yourself".
Religion has all the answers, and in most religions you're not allowed to question god, the holy book, or the clergy/whatever that religion has as 'ministers of god on earth'.

This caused a lot of problems in the past, when science came into full swing. For example, Columbus might have figured out that the earth was round... the church was still convinced that it was flat... So that is a problem.
Likewise, Darwin's theory of evolution didn't exactly jive with what the Bible said about God creating the earth and its lifeforms in just 7 days. Apparently some Christians still cannot accept this theory, despite the overwhelming evidence in fossils, DNA research and various experiments with cloning/mutating species.

In my opinion religion is a relic of the past. I'm sure it had its use back in the day when we didn't have the science and technology to explain certain phenomena better... and it also has its uses in crowd control, creating decent values for a society to live by. I think a lot of Christian values and virtues have their place in modern society, and we certainly shouldn't abandon those.
But some things just clash with today's world. All you need to do is google around and see what the world is really like. Not everything in the Bible is correct, we have proof of that. And if you are in a modern country with access to information through TV, libraries, internet etc, and you still cling to your religion rather than looking for the REAL answers, then yes, I think 'brainwashed' and 'not capable of thinking for oneself' are dead-on.


----------



## Naren (Oct 6, 2008)

And that is your opinion. Most people in the world do not agree. I personally am an atheist, but almost all of my relatives--including those on my step-dad's side of the family--are religious (the only exceptions I can think of is my brother and myself). 

According to every survey taken, over 90% of Americans believe in God. I've seen surveys that said 92% and surveys that said 95%. According to a survey I read, around 70% of Europeans believe in God. That's much much lower than the US, but it's still the majority of Europeans. Maybe those statistics are even lower in the Netherlands. If you find it hard to believe that around 95% of Americans believe in God, maybe you should visit the United States.

But, like I said, even if you do not see the way things are as an ideal, it is the reality. And, what I was saying in my last post (that I don't think you understood) is that humans out of instinct search for purpose and for that reason, religion will never disappear. The fact that it is 2008 now and people are still against homosexual marriage have nothing in common.


----------



## Scali (Oct 6, 2008)

Naren said:


> And that is your opinion. Most people in the world do not agree. I personally am an atheist, but almost all of my relatives--including those on my step-dad's side of the family--are religious (the only exceptions I can think of is my brother and myself).


 
Well, let's get one thing straight:
- I do not understand religious people, at least people that choose religious 'explanations' over scientific facts (or in this case, the law). I'm willing to believe that there was a prophet by the name of Jesus some 2000 years ago (and I'm willing to believe there was a Muhamed a few hundred years later). I'm also willing to believe that some of the stories about him in the Bible are true (or at least partly true). Whether he actually was the son of God or not... well, nobody can prove either way, so I can't blame people for believing he is. But things that we know for a fact aren't true, because of our modern technology, science, research etc... no, I can't see how people believe in those still.
- That does not mean that I do not tolerate or respect them. Everyone is entitled to their own views. I'm quite sure many people don't understand many things of me, yet I'd like them to tolerate and respect me aswell. In fact, that is a Christian value: Do unto others...



Naren said:


> According to every survey taken, over 90&#37; of Americans believe in God. I've seen surveys that said 92% and surveys that said 95%. According to a survey I read, around 70% of Europeans believe in God. That's much much lower than the US, but it's still the majority of Europeans.


 
Perhaps, but I think it's not as simple as that. Europe is a combination of many countries, each with their own government and culture. For example, I'm quite sure that The Netherlands or Germany will be below the average, while a country like Italy or Spain is probably closer to the 90% you see in the US. Ironically enough Spain, as religious as it is, has a legal gay marriage. You have to understand that different countries interpret religion differently. In the US, Christians tend to interpret the Bible quite literally, ironically enough that is quite similar to how Muslims see the Quran.



Naren said:


> If you find it hard to believe that around 95% of Americans believe in God, maybe you should visit the United States.


 
I never said I found it hard to believe. I don't know where you're getting that. The fact that the US is a very religious country was never disputed, and is actually the cause of this discussion.



Naren said:


> The fact that it is 2008 now and people are still against homosexual marriage have nothing in common.


 
In a way it is. In classical times, homosexuality was also accepted. Then Christianity outlawed it, and we have to go through the whole acceptance again. Apparently people in Europe are more tolerant/quicker to accept than people in the US.
You have to take into account that the US has only existed for a few hundred years, and its population consists almost entirely of European immigrants and their African slaves (which were generally converted to Christians by the Europeans aswell).
So you started out from the same point as we did in Europe. And for at least the last 50 years, communication via newspapers, radio, TV, internet and such has created this 'global village'... We are not living in separate worlds anymore. Our 2008 is the same as your 2008. You know everything we do, and vice versa.


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 6, 2008)

Scali said:


> Ironically enough Spain, as religious as it is, has a legal gay marriage. You have to understand that different countries interpret religion differently. In the US, Christians tend to interpret the Bible quite literally, ironically enough that is quite similar to how Muslims see the Quran.



And this is in fact what I believe most responders in this thread have been trying to communicate. The thing you have to remember when comparing science and law with religion is that science is not a democracy. The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter if everyone votes on it, it will not change. Law on the other hand is created by man and it contains the bias of the people. In fact much like theological nations, such as Iran, there are many who would prefer that the government and religion *were* connected. This is as true of the Bible Belt in the US as it is in Iran. These people truly believe that their values are the right ones and should be shared by all. Ironically it's not much different than the rest of us.

Many here agree with you that it should not be this way but the reality is something different. It may be possible to change it some time in the future but it will be just as difficult as getting those theological states to change (ie; pretty damn hard).


----------



## Scali (Oct 6, 2008)

BigM555 said:


> And this is in fact what I believe most responders in this thread have been trying to communicate. The thing you have to remember when comparing science and law with religion is that science is not a democracy. The truth is the truth, it doesn't matter if everyone votes on it, it will not change. Law on the other hand is created by man and it contains the bias of the people.


 
True, but the point was that the law doesn't see marriage as something religious per se. So the current law does NOT contain a religious bias. That's why I find it so strange that people connect gay marriage with religion. The law would have to be changed first to get a connection like that.



BigM555 said:


> In fact much like theological nations, such as Iran, there are many who would prefer that the government and religion *were* connected.


 
Yes, but I have a lot of question marks with that.
Firstly, those regions aren't as developed as ours. The people aren't as educated as we are, and don't have free access to information the way we do. The government also likes to make sure that it stays that way. So in a way it's a dictatorship, the people are oppressed. They keep the people dumb for their own benefit.
I have spoken to a Palestinian on the internet various times, and it was 'interesting' to see how he was indoctrinated to hate us Western people. He was apparently under the impression that the entire Western world is Christian and hates Muslims. He was also convinced that our information was all biased and propaganda. Probably says more about them than about us


----------



## BigM555 (Oct 6, 2008)

Scali said:


> True, but the point was that the law doesn't see marriage as something religious per se. So the current law does NOT contain a religious bias.



Considering that, by far, the vast majority of marriages in the US are conducted by a religious official "before God" I'm not sure how you can say that. As Naren pointed out, some 90% of the US believes in God. That means that roughly 90% of the people voting, making laws and interpreting the laws also believe in God. It's not that much of a stretch to understand how difficult it would be for them to set aside their religious beliefs while doing so. For many of these people religion helps to define who they are. You can't expect them to just cast it aside. This is the same reason for not questioning what they've been taught. They really don't want to learn that it was wrong. It would leave a huge void in their persona.

Yes, the law is ignorant of religion but the law was written by man and is administered by man. There is really no way to remove the bias.

As for being informed in modern society; like a 12 step program the first epiphany would be admitting you have a problem. I've never met a single religious person who felt their beliefs were a problem. Never underestimate peoples ability for self-delusion.


----------



## Naren (Oct 6, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, let's get one thing straight:
> - I do not understand religious people, at least people that choose religious 'explanations' over scientific facts (or in this case, the law). I'm willing to believe that there was a prophet by the name of Jesus some 2000 years ago (and I'm willing to believe there was a Muhamed a few hundred years later). I'm also willing to believe that some of the stories about him in the Bible are true (or at least partly true). Whether he actually was the son of God or not... well, nobody can prove either way, so I can't blame people for believing he is. But things that we know for a fact aren't true, because of our modern technology, science, research etc... no, I can't see how people believe in those still.
> - That does not mean that I do not tolerate or respect them. Everyone is entitled to their own views. I'm quite sure many people don't understand many things of me, yet I'd like them to tolerate and respect me aswell. In fact, that is a Christian value: Do unto others...



Well, the truth of the matter is that religious people and non-religious people think differently. People who believe in science can't understand how people could believe a "fairytale book" over real evidence. People who believe in religion/God can't understand how non-religious people can't believe in God. Some of them think that they are rebelling against God. Some think that they are just "blind to the truth."

The majority of them are stubborn and the majority of the self-professed Christians in the US do not follow their own religion's beliefs. And oftentimes they don't really understand them.

I don't agree with most of them, but there's nothing we can do to change what they believe right now.

I think that I understand religious people (I went to a Baptist junior high and high school where I had to read the Bible many times all the way through and go to chapels every week and I grew up in a strong Christian household. And I studied religions in college, most of all Buddhism, which I studied intensely in Japan), but I do not agree with them. I see that they are oftentimes fundamentally different from atheists.



Scali said:


> Perhaps, but I think it's not as simple as that. Europe is a combination of many countries, each with their own government and culture. For example, I'm quite sure that The Netherlands or Germany will be below the average, while a country like Italy or Spain is probably closer to the 90% you see in the US. Ironically enough Spain, as religious as it is, has a legal gay marriage. You have to understand that different countries interpret religion differently. In the US, Christians tend to interpret the Bible quite literally, ironically enough that is quite similar to how Muslims see the Quran.



Yes. In the research I saw that said that 70% of Europeans believe in God, but it also said that in Poland, 97% of people believe in God. I forget the exact breakdown, but it said something like 56% of people in Russia believe in God. And Italy was around 90%. I forget Germany, but I think it was relatively low.

So, yeah, it does depend on the country. Well, Catholics tend to be more flexible towards some things and more strict towards other things. Protestants tend to be more flexible towards other things and more strict towards yet again other things. 

But Christians and Muslims are generally very literal about their scriptures.



Scali said:


> In a way it is. In classical times, homosexuality was also accepted. Then Christianity outlawed it, and we have to go through the whole acceptance again. Apparently people in Europe are more tolerant/quicker to accept than people in the US.
> You have to take into account that the US has only existed for a few hundred years, and its population consists almost entirely of European immigrants and their African slaves (which were generally converted to Christians by the Europeans aswell).
> So you started out from the same point as we did in Europe. And for at least the last 50 years, communication via newspapers, radio, TV, internet and such has created this 'global village'... We are not living in separate worlds anymore. Our 2008 is the same as your 2008. You know everything we do, and vice versa.



Well, in some countries in classical times, homosexuality was accepted and in others it wasn't. Even in Asia, you'll find neighboring countries where homosexuality was accepted in one and banned in the other.

Maybe we are not living in "seperate worlds," but European culture and North American culture is QUITE different. I work with the American and European branches of my company and I work with French, German, and Italian employees every day and they (and myself) have adapted to a different culture and I think all of us have taken ourselves to a higher level of understanding about our respective cultures, but we all know that our respective cultures are quite different. 

Knowing the same information as you is not going to change my opinion regarding certain things.

My mom, for example, actually has some gay friends. She believes that what they are doing is immoral, but she says "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner." She is quite knowledgable about world events, but she views everything in a very different way than I do. I don't see this as a lack of knowledge on her side. I see it as her seeing things through the colored glasses of Christianity.


----------



## Scali (Oct 6, 2008)

BigM555 said:


> Considering that, by far, the vast majority of marriages in the US are conducted by a religious official "before God" I'm not sure how you can say that.


 
How does that work exactly?
In NL the clergy has no legal power, so they are not authorized to perform a legal marriage. Only a sworn-in civil servant can perform a legal marriage.
A marriage 'before God' is literally before God, as it only applies to your religion, you still need to get married at city hall to actually have a legal marriage.
Do your ministers have some kind of legal power, or is a religious marriage accepted as a legal marriage by default or something?
Over here it's strictly separate. As I say, religious people marry twice, once at city hall, once in church ('before God').



BigM555 said:


> As Naren pointed out, some 90% of the US believes in God. That means that roughly 90% of the people voting, making laws and interpreting the laws also believe in God. It's not that much of a stretch to understand how difficult it would be for them to set aside their religious beliefs while doing so.


 
I think you are overlooking some things.
Firstly, even though 90% may be religious, that does not automatically mean they all have the SAME religion. Because of different religions and conflicting beliefs, it's very hard to base law on religion in the first place.
This is one of the main reasons why in modern society we want to separate state and church. In NL the constitution prohibits you from making any kind of decisions or law based on religion, racism or anything.
I'm quite sure that the US constitution has similar clauses.

There's quite probably well over 50% of religious people in NL aswell. Thing is that a large part of them are Muslims. The second largest group is probably Christians (in various forms), and then there are jews and various other religions.
In fact, NL used to be a safe haven for certain religions. Other European countries would prosecute people of 'alternative' religions, and they would take refuge to the more liberal NL.
Basing law on religion is just instant discrimination in any modern society.



BigM555 said:


> Yes, the law is ignorant of religion but the law was written by man and is administered by man. There is really no way to remove the bias.


 
I'm quite sure they tried though, as I said above. I know they did in NL, a VERY long time ago.



BigM555 said:


> As for being informed in modern society; like a 12 step program the first epiphany would be admitting you have a problem. I've never met a single religious person who felt their beliefs were a problem. Never underestimate peoples ability for self-delusion.


 
I don't, I'm quite aware that it happens. That doesn't mean I understand those people though.



Naren said:


> Well, in some countries in classical times, homosexuality was accepted and in others it wasn't. Even in Asia, you'll find neighboring countries where homosexuality was accepted in one and banned in the other.


 
Funny enough, just like with Italy/Spain vs NL/Germany, in the old times it was often the more powerful/successful/advanced civilization that was more tolerant about these issues (and generally you'll find more religious people in the less populated areas... people in the city don't seem to have time or need for religion as much).



BigM555 said:


> Maybe we are not living in "seperate worlds," but European culture and North American culture is QUITE different. I work with the American and European branches of my company and I work with French, German, and Italian employees every day and they (and myself) have adapted to a different culture and I think all of us have taken ourselves to a higher level of understanding about our respective cultures, but we all know that our respective cultures are quite different.


 
I work in a very international company aswell. We have offices virtually all over the world, including the UK, US, Australia, Norway, France... and at my office we have various nationalities, including Italian, Polish, Chinese and French.



BigM555 said:


> My mom, for example, actually has some gay friends. She believes that what they are doing is immoral, but she says "God hates the sin, but loves the sinner." She is quite knowledgable about world events, but she views everything in a very different way than I do. I don't see this as a lack of knowledge on her side. I see it as her seeing things through the colored glasses of Christianity.


 
Funny you should say that. Perhaps you heard about the Dutch illusionist Hans Klok? He used to have a show in Las Vegas, with Pamela Anderson.
He's gay, which he is very open about here in NL. But Pamela Anderson told him not to make it public, and she actually flirted with him in public, trying to give the impression that they were a couple, for the press.
She was afraid that if word got out that he was gay, it would hurt his popularity. And it did.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 6, 2008)

A religious marriage here is considered a legal one. That why I was trying to make the distinction between forcing religious people to perform the ceremony, vs having it done by a civil servant. I'm not too sure of the process that the clergy goes through, I imagine they just fill out some paper work or something, but you don't have 2 separate marriages here. You CAN get it done at city hall or where ever, but that's really not that common.


----------



## Scali (Oct 6, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> A religious marriage here is considered a legal one. That why I was trying to make the distinction between forcing religious people to perform the ceremony, vs having it done by a civil servant. I'm not too sure of the process that the clergy goes through, I imagine they just fill out some paper work or something, but you don't have 2 separate marriages here. You CAN get it done at city hall or where ever, but that's really not that common.


 
Well, I'm quite sure that gay couples would be fine with a marriage at city hall (or what also happens here is that the civil servant can perform the marriage on location, so they can organize a nice wedding ceremony/party somewhere. This is quite a popular option for younger couples, because most young Dutch people aren't religious... except for the immigrants that is). As I say, I don't know of any religion that accepts homosexuality, so I doubt that there are many homosexuals that are religious. Why marry before a god who considers you a sinner?

In Canada this is possible as far as I know, because a gay marriage is fully recognized by the state. In some US states this is also the case (CA being one, I wonder if the Governator had anything to do with that ).


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 6, 2008)

Yeah, we Canadians support gay marriage, just as long as both the chicks are hot.


----------



## Drew (Oct 6, 2008)

Scali said:


> stuff



Sigh. I'm sure someone else has already gotten into this one with you, but it'd be pretty cool if you could stop presupposing everyone in the United States is an uber-religious nutjob moron, when you're talking to an American.


----------



## 7 Strings of Hate (Oct 6, 2008)

drew, your not a mod anymore?


----------



## Scali (Oct 6, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sigh. I'm sure someone else has already gotten into this one with you, but it'd be pretty cool if you could stop presupposing everyone in the United States is an uber-religious nutjob moron, when you're talking to an American.


 
I'm sorry if your fellow countrymen embaress you.
But I don't see any reason why I can't discuss a country's problems with people who live in that country.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I'm sorry if your fellow countrymen embaress you.
> But I don't see any reason why I can't discuss a country's problems with people who live in that country.



Because you _don't_ live here.


----------



## forelander (Oct 7, 2008)

NegaTiveXero said:


> Because you _don't_ live here.



While I may not agree with what was said or the manner it which it was said, that's not exactly a fair statement. Like it or not, the things that happen in America affect the rest of the world.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

forelander said:


> While I may not agree with what was said or the manner it which it was said, that's not exactly a fair statement. Like it or not, the things that happen in America affect the rest of the world.


 
Indeed. Europe is in a financial crisis at this moment, which is mainly caused by the US.

Aside from that, what difference does it make where anyone lives? You think it's silly for politicians of different countries to come together and discuss problems, both local and global? Because that's what politicians do.
Whether or not I live in the US doesn't change the problems that you have. I see no relevance.
Europe/NL have plenty of problems aswell, and I have no problem with anyone discussing them. These problems don't just go away if nobody talks about them, you know.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 7, 2008)

It's completely fair for me to say that. You keep telling us our problems. We don't need you to do that for us.


----------



## DDDorian (Oct 7, 2008)

Considering there's a very real chance of your country electing McCain in a few weeks, I tend to think that you do. Like it or not, this election is widely viewed as a referendum on American stupidity and while I think I can speak for everyone on in this thread in saying we hope you pass, I'm less than optimistic.

EDIT: ("you" being America and Americans, not you, NegaTiveXero\)


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

7 Strings of Hate said:


> drew, your not a mod anymore?



No, I stepped down. 



Scali said:


> I'm sorry if your fellow countrymen embaress you.
> But I don't see any reason why I can't discuss a country's problems with people who live in that country.



This has come up before, man - it's not that you _can't_ discuss a country's problems, it's just that it's expected you do so with a certain amount of tact. 

I'm an American - I can be a bit more harsh to my country than you can be since I'm condeming myself along with my countrymen if I speak out about America as a whole. 

You're not. If you say "Americans are this, this, and this," then not only do you open yourself to charges of broad generalizations about an entire people because you're speaking out about a people that by definition you can't know as well as your own, but also because you're speaking about a people "other" than your own, other in the CapitalO cultural sense, then it creates the impression of cultural protection, xenophobia, and simple dislike for anyone who doesn't share the value set that you have. 

Now, I'm not saying you're a racist, exactly, but you have to admit that your habit of making generalizations about Americans and judging them for it certainly opens yourself up to that charge. As an American, I find that offensive, and would ask that you try to use a little more tact and a little less generalization when talking about my fellow countrymen. We're not perfect, but we deserve a _little_ better than that.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> Indeed. Europe is in a financial crisis at this moment, which is mainly caused by the US.



That's actually not true. We were just the first to have a mortgage-related downturn; the Economist has argued that Great Britian and Spain are as much at fauult, if not more so, than the United States.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> This has come up before, man - it's not that you _can't_ discuss a country's problems, it's just that it's expected you do so with a certain amount of tact.
> 
> I'm an American - I can be a bit more harsh to my country than you can be since I'm condeming myself along with my countrymen if I speak out about America as a whole.
> 
> ...


 
I completely disagree.
While I can understand that an American will get more emotional when people discuss his country's problems, rather than other country's problems... I don't think that is a reason why you are not able to speak about those problems.
Conversely I don't think you'd get this worked up if someone was scrutinizing any other country's problems.
In other words, I understand the problem you have with what I'm saying, but I disagree with everything else. I think the solution is that you need to handle these things in a more mature way. Don't let your emotions get the better of you.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

DDDorian said:


> Considering there's a very real chance of your country electing McCain in a few weeks, I tend to think that you do. Like it or not, this election is widely viewed as a referendum on American stupidity and while I think I can speak for everyone on in this thread in saying we hope you pass, I'm less than optimistic.
> 
> EDIT: ("you" being America and Americans, not you, NegaTiveXero\)



That chance is decreasing faster than you think - FiveThirtyEight.com is putting it at about 11.5% today:


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> That's actually not true. We were just the first to have a mortgage-related downturn; the Economist has argued that Great Britian and Spain are as much at fauult, if not more so, than the United States.


 
I wouldn't know about that, but even if that is true, I'd still interject the following:
1) Even if some countries in Europe have also miscarried themselves in terms of loans, mortgages and similar monetary issues, it's not the whole of Europe.
2) It was probably not on as large a scale as in the US.

Thing is that we didn't have anything to do with it, yet some of our banks deal with US banks and are now hit by the depression. Our government had to save one bank by buying up a big part.
I blame this fully on the US.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I completely disagree.
> While I can understand that an American will get more emotional when people discuss his country's problems, rather than other country's problems... I don't think that is a reason why you are not able to speak about those problems.
> Conversely I don't think you'd get this worked up if someone was scrutinizing any other country's problems.
> In other words, I understand the problem you have with what I'm saying, but I disagree with everything else. I think the solution is that you need to handle these things in a more mature way. Don't let your emotions get the better of you.



Way to COMPLETELY miss my point, man. 

I think 7 Dying Trees said it best - if I started talking about how I thought The Netherlands was a cesspit of humanity because drug use was rampant, prostitution was openly practiced, and there was little to no concern with international affairs shown by the government, that's going to be a bit more offensive as a non-resident of Hague than from a resident of Hague because I'm speaking from a perspective of Otherness towards your culture. It's like the old joke, "Hey, you can't call us that, only _we_ can call us that!" Or, how there's certain words that are perfectly acceptable to use in a rap song, but if I used on the streets of Compton I'd get shot, not because of the language or what was said, but because of who I am when I say it. 

Or, put plainly, it's the difference between self-criticism and criticism of the Other. As an American I have liscense to say certain things about America that you do not, at least with the same degree of bluntness, because _as_ an American I can't be accused of saying it because I hate America or Americans. Meanwhile, I am (and should be) expected to excersize a little more tact when speaking about the specific problems that other countries face, because to not do so opens me to the same charge that what I'm reacting to isn't the problems, it's the country. 

Again, I'm not calling all women in the Hague sluts because prostitution is allowed, and I suspect you'd find it offensive if I did. Meanwhile, taking resistance to gay marraige as "...show(ing) how conservative the US is, how they aren't willing to change their way of thinking in any way" simply because a percentage of my countrymen don't agree with it is similarly off base, for the same reason that you lump all Americans into one bucket, and then as you clearly consider yourself outside that bucket the question remains, are you condemning the bucket, or using it as an excuse to condemn the country?


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I wouldn't know about that, but even if that is true, I'd still interject the following:
> 1) Even if some countries in Europe have also miscarried themselves in terms of loans, mortgages and similar monetary issues, it's not the whole of Europe.
> 2) It was probably not on as large a scale as in the US.
> 
> ...



Actually, the entire EU zone is in an economic downturn, and over the weekend Germany and Italy had to step in to salvage 
Thing is that we didn't have anything to do with it, yet some of our banks deal with US banks and are now hit by the depression. Our government had to save one bank by buying up a big part.
I blame this fully on the US.[/QUOTE]

Actually, the entire EU zone is in an economic downturn, and over the weekend Germany and Italy had to step in to salvage their respective banks. Unemployment numbers aren't good anywhere in the zone, and there were huge housing bubbled that their respective banks. Unemployment numbers aren't good anywhere in the zone, and there were huge housing bubbled that burst in England and, especially, in Spain. 

so, clearly it's more than an American-driven problem. I'm not saying we're guiltless, but up until the past two weeks America had actually done a better job weathering the storm than a number of EU economies (and I don't have statistics on the last couple weeks for the rest of Europe, but I'll certainly post up when I do). 

So, have you actually been reading about the global economic crisis, or are you just using it, like gay marriage, to take a pot shot at a country you dislike?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to work. If you want to continue to pin this "fully" on the United States and not on financial excess and lack of proper regulation in a whole slew of developing and developed economies, then I'd expect to find a little more than loose generalizations in this thread when next I check it.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> Way to COMPLETELY miss my point, man.
> 
> I think 7 Dying Trees said it best - if I started talking about how I thought The Netherlands was a cesspit of humanity because drug use was rampant, prostitution was openly practiced, and there was little to no concern with international affairs shown by the government, that's going to be a bit more offensive as a non-resident of Hague than from a resident of Hague because I'm speaking from a perspective of Otherness towards your culture. It's like the old joke, "Hey, you can't call us that, only _we_ can call us that!" Or, how there's certain words that are perfectly acceptable to use in a rap song, but if I used on the streets of Compton I'd get shot, not because of the language or what was said, but because of who I am when I say it.


 
As I say, I understand what goes on, that doesn't mean I support it, or are willing to go along with it (if I understand you correctly, you actually approve of people shooting other people for having an opinion?).
Tough luck, but the bottom line is simply that I'm not going to have my freedom of speech limited by some Americans who are overly touchy about their own country and its problems (but generally couldn't care less about the rest of the world).

Likewise I have no problem with anything you would like to say about NL or The Hague. If it's true, then I'd be a fool for trying to deny it. And if it's not true, why would I care? It'd just make you look like a fool.
You couldn't be more wrong in thinking I'd be offended. It says a lot about you though.


----------



## Naren (Oct 7, 2008)

Great posts, Drew.

Scali is correct in a lot of areas, but he is taking it the completely wrong way and is ignoring anyone else's posts and just rejecting them as incorrect. I think he should take some of his own advice and be more open-minded and realistic regarding the issue. Although I doubt this is true, many of his posts in this thread border on xenophobic. It's almost like "everything America does is wrong and everything the Netherlands does is right." Pretty much every comparison is between the US and the Netherlands (sometimes disguised as just "Europe").

The US isn't nearly the backwards medieval brainwashed country of idiots you're making it out to be...


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> As I say, I understand what goes on, that doesn't mean I support it, or are willing to go along with it (if I understand you correctly, you actually approve of people shooting other people for having an opinion?).
> Tough luck, but the bottom line is simply that I'm not going to have my freedom of speech limited by some Americans who are overly touchy about their own country and its problems (but generally couldn't care less about the rest of the world).
> 
> Likewise I have no problem with anything you would like to say about NL or The Hague. If it's true, then I'd be a fool for trying to deny it. And if it's not true, why would I care? It'd just make you look like a fool.
> You couldn't be more wrong in thinking I'd be offended. It says a lot about you though.



Sigh. I'm an advocate of gun control, a view I've espoused countless times on this board. That doesn't change the fact that because I'm white there's a few words that will most likely get me shot in Compton if I use them. From that statement (an objective reality), I have no idea how you'd possibly conclude that I think this is a _good_ thing. My point, rather, was that speaking in overly incinerary tones towards a group I'm not a part of will undoubtably cause a serious baclkash simply because I'm NOT part of the group. 

Meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make broad, sweeping generalizations about my country, especially given that the country happens to be composed of a myriad of radically different beliefs and world-views, such that any single generalization almost has to be wrong at least half the time. 

If your fundamental belief is that by making wildly off base comments about a country, you look like a fool, then I hope you don't mind that I think you're a fool, because you certainly have said a lot of awfully foolish things in this thread.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

I'm basically being told to shut up about America because I don't live there.
I'd love to be more open-minded and realistic about it, but it just goes against the freedom of speech which I believe in.
I'm also quite sure about who REALLY needs to be more open-minded here...


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Naren said:


> Great posts, Drew.
> 
> Scali is correct in a lot of areas, but he is taking it the completely wrong way and is ignoring anyone else's posts and just rejecting them as incorrect. I think he should take some of his own advice and be more open-minded and realistic regarding the issue. Although I doubt this is true, many of his posts in this thread border on xenophobic. It's almost like "everything America does is wrong and everything the Netherlands does is right." Pretty much every comparison is between the US and the Netherlands (sometimes disguised as just "Europe").
> 
> The US isn't nearly the backwards medieval brainwashed country of idiots you're making it out to be...



Thank you, Naren, for actually getting what I was trying to say, and not turning my comments into support of shooting people (???). 

Scali, I even agree with you that we need to either stop recognizing marraige in a religious sense at the federal level and only let the state recognize it in a civil sense, or if not then at the federal level enforce the expansion of both meanings to no longer exclude same sex couples. It's just when you then go and say, "this is just proof of how conservative Americans are," then as a dyed-in-the-wool liberal who's just as if not MORE frustrated with this issue as you are, I'm going to find that pretty damned offensive, that you're completely ignoring the majority (yes, majority) of Americans who don't think it's fair to recognize heterosexual but not homosexual marraige.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I'm basically being told to shut up about America because I don't live there.
> I'd love to be more open-minded and realistic about it, but it just goes against the freedom of speech which I believe in.
> I'm also quite sure about who REALLY needs to be more open-minded here...



 Have you actually read anything I've said, dude? I merely told you that people will be WAY more willing to listen to you if you exersized a little more tact in the WAY you express your opinions. 

How exactly can I be closed minded, if we both happen to be in agreement on the subject of same-sex marraige? Explain that to me, please.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 7, 2008)

Dude, they aren't telling you to shut up because you're not American, they're telling you to shut up because you're basically lumping them in with the rest of the country. This is the point I was making in the other thread. If you insult someone, they are going to defend themselves. That's the problem with sweeping generalizations. To easily avoid the issue in the future, it would just be easier to use the term "a lot of Americans..." or something along those lines.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> Sigh. I'm an advocate of gun control, a view I've espoused countless times on this board. That doesn't change the fact that because I'm white there's a few words that will most likely get me shot in Compton if I use them. From that statement (an objective reality), I have no idea how you'd possibly conclude that I think this is a _good_ thing. My point, rather, was that speaking in overly incinerary tones towards a group I'm not a part of will undoubtably cause a serious baclkash simply because I'm NOT part of the group.


 
You use it as an example to illustrate your point, so apparently you think that's how it's supposed to work?
So we should have a gangster mentality on this forum, and oppress people by force and violence, so they can't say things we don't want to hear, no matter how true they might be?

I happen to believe in equality.



Drew said:


> Meanwhile, I'd appreciate it if you didn't make broad, sweeping generalizations about my country, especially given that the country happens to be composed of a myriad of radically different beliefs and world-views, such that any single generalization almost has to be wrong at least half the time.


 
I've used that exact argument earlier in the discussion, to demonstrate that even though the US might be quite religious, that doesn't mean that you can base law on religion.
So apparently I'm well aware of the diversity.



Drew said:


> If your fundamental belief is that by making wildly off base comments about a country, you look like a fool, then I hope you don't mind that I think you're a fool, because you certainly have said a lot of awfully foolish things in this thread.


 
Ah, we've descended down to baseless ad-hominems now?
I don't care what you think, but considering that quite a few people agreed with many things I said, I sincerely doubt the foolishness of my contributions to this thread, and I will conclude that it's just your emotions getting the better of you.

"Because you don't live here" is a direct quote. I rest my case.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 7, 2008)

This thread is /facepalm personified.

I'm not even from the US and I get a very strong anti-US sentiment from your posts Scali. I mean, you could argue that since Canadian and US culture are pretty close with a few exceptions, that I'm just being emotional  But I don't think that's the case.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Dude, they aren't telling you to shut up because you're not American, they're telling you to shut up because you're basically lumping them in with the rest of the country. This is the point I was making in the other thread. If you insult someone, they are going to defend themselves. That's the problem with sweeping generalizations. To easily avoid the issue in the future, it would just be easier to use the term "a lot of Americans..." or something along those lines.


 
I don't want to go over that again.
I didn't make sweeping generalizations last time, and I didn't make them now. I didn't call anyone in this thread out specifically (although people have attacked me personally). So I never meant to insult anyone in this thread and I refuse to be accused of that.

The problem you're describing is the following:
I need to pick my words more carefully because some people get overly sensitive when their country is being discussed.
I refuse to do so because I see no reason for doing that.
The rest is just down to people behaving themselves in a mature way, keeping their emotions under control and remaining rational and respectful. This is how I believe such issues should be dealt with.

Blaming me (unrightfully) of generalizing or even insulting people is not going to help this debate. It will only make the wrong people think they're right.


----------



## Naren (Oct 7, 2008)

You rest your case and look like a close-minded fool in the process.  

You are essentially trying to stand in the one and only position of absolute truth here, calling anyone who doesn't agree with you close-minded, while claiming to be open-minded yourself. I have to imagine that you are misunderstanding Drew on purpose, because I can't believe you would be so stupid to actually believe some of the stuff you are saying. Can you re-read your last few posts and say that YOUR emotions aren't getting the better of you? 

And you can't understand how these Americans, Canadians, British, Australians, and other Europeans do not agree with you here. As Drew said, your sentiments come across as extremely visceral and blindly anti-American (and I've noticed you perpetuating stereotypes and generalizations about Americans in several threads by now). That seems pretty close-minded to me.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> *You use it as an example to illustrate your point, so apparently you think that's how it's supposed to work?*
> So we should have a gangster mentality on this forum, and oppress people by force and violence, so they can't say things we don't want to hear, no matter how true they might be?
> 
> I happen to believe in equality.
> ...



 I'll respond to the highlighted comments. 

1.) No, I used it as an example of how it DOES work. If you prefer, say that I said I'd get spit on in Compton, or politely told, "Sir, I find your useage of these particular terms highly offensive in that based on the coloration of your skin they cannot be construed to refer to yourself, and thus I find your usage discriminatory." It's the fact that there WILL be a response, and not the fact that the particular response is going to involve me being shot, that counts. Anything past that, and you're putting words into my mouth. 

2.) So, if you believe there's a wide variety of different political opinions in this country, how can you in the same breath turn around and say we're all conservatives? 

3.) Oh, sorry if I was unclear. As you argued a few posts above, "And if it's not true, why would I care? It'd just make you look like a fool." I was just pointing out that since what you were saying wasn't true, then by your own standard you look like a fool. You're right, I probably should have said "I think you look like a fool," but really by that point it's just semantics. 

4.) ...but not from me. Meanwhile, I've been trying to argue this entire thread that speaking as part of a group and speaking as an outsider of a group are two slightly different situations, with the later requiring a little more tact than the former. As JJ so excellently summarized above, the tone you're taking, looping all Americans into the same bucket regardless of their personal opinions, is going to offend a LOT of Americans who happen to disagree with that generalized opinion you're attributing to all of them.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I'm not even from the US and I get a very strong anti-US sentiment from your posts Scali.


 
I just mentioned some things like how they are intolerant towards gay marriage, or how their economy was in the red zone with the mortgages etc. Which are both facts, by the way.
You're the one generalizing it to anti-US sentiment. I have nothing against the US in general, and I don't really care about the gay marriage thing because it doesn't affect me.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I didn't make sweeping generalizations last time, and I didn't make them now. I didn't call anyone in this thread out specifically (although people have attacked me personally).



Actually, and I quote...



Scali said:


> It just shows how conservative the US is, how they aren't willing to change their way of thinking in any way. In other countries (even one just north of the US) marriages have been extended (which I think is a better term than 'redefined' in this case) to include same-sex couples, no problem. Why can't the US do that?



I take a lot of offense to that statement, as I suspect do the vast majority of Americans on this board. this is the three sentences where my problem with your posts began.

And I haven't insulted you personally, merely pointed out that by your own standards you look like a fool. Slight difference.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I don't want to go over that again.
> I didn't make sweeping generalizations last time, and I didn't make them now. I didn't call anyone in this thread out specifically (although people have attacked me personally). So I never meant to insult anyone in this thread and I refuse to be accused of that.
> 
> The problem you're describing is the following:
> ...




You don't need to get so defensive dude, I'm just trying to explain in another way. My post was made in a light hearted manor, but you seem to have taken it kind of personal, at least that's the tone I get from your post. And it's not so much when their country is being discussed, you're discussing THEM. That's the point.

I'm not blaming you for anything, I'm just offering some advice on how to avoid a big long debate that pretty much has nothing to do with the original topic. I'm just saying the tone of your posts is kind of insulting to the US citizins here, and obviously I'm not the only one who thinks so. Personally, I don't care THAT much since I'm not lumped in with them (I don't think), it just seems no one else can get through to you because they're being emotional Americans.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> 2.) So, if you believe there's a wide variety of different political opinions in this country, how can you in the same breath turn around and say we're all conservatives?


 
I never said anything of the sort.



Drew said:


> I was just pointing out that since what you were saying wasn't true, then by your own standard you look like a fool. You're right, I probably should have said "I think you look like a fool," but really by that point it's just semantics.


 
If I said something that wasn't true, but you never managed to prove anything like that, so it's just a baseless personal attack.



Drew said:


> 4.) ...but not from me.


 
I never said it was you. But it was a blatant demonstration of intolerance.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I just mentioned some things like how they are intolerant towards gay marriage, or how their economy was in the red zone with the mortgages etc. Which are both facts, by the way.



Actually, it's not "fact." 

I for one am VERY tolerant of gay marriages. I went to my first one a month ago, in fact, and it was a surprisingly touching ceremony. 

Meanwhile, as I've pointed out on I think three seperate occasions now, the worst of the housing bubble actually occured in Spain. We're probably tied with the UK for third place, but we're certainly not the "worst" and we're certainly not alone.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> I for one am VERY tolerant of gay marriages. I went to my first one a month ago, in fact, and it was a surprisingly *touching ceremony*.



God damnit Drew, don't make statements that are THAT easy to poke fun at in P&CE, you'll get me banned.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> I take a lot of offense to that statement, as I suspect do the vast majority of Americans on this board. this is the three sentences where my problem with your posts began.


 
That's your problem really.
You pull that statement out of context.
"The US" in that statement means the government of the US.
It is a fact that gay marriage is not legal in all but a handful of states (I believe 2, currently).
It is also a fact that the legalization of gay marriage is not on the agenda of most states, let alone that the federal government forces it nation-wide.

You mistake that as me saying that ALL US citizens are against gay marriage, which obviously isn't true, proven at the very least by the fact that some states DO have legal gay marriage.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I never said anything of the sort.





Scali said:


> It just shows how conservative the US is, how they aren't willing to change their way of thinking in any way. In other countries (even one just north of the US) marriages have been extended (which I think is a better term than 'redefined' in this case) to include same-sex couples, no problem. Why can't the US do that?







Scali said:


> If I said something that wasn't true, but you never managed to prove anything like that, so it's just a baseless personal attack.



...becauuse you evidently have decided to believe that I'm lying when I say that a huge number of Americans aren't conservatives, as you've claimed above, and a lot of them, myself included, are in favor of same sex marraige. 

...Except when I point out that we're NOT all religious conservatives and that a huge number of us are secular moderates or even, god forbid, liberals, you reply "I've used that exact argument earlier in the discussion," which to me I guess suggests that you agree with me that the United States isn't the religious conservative base you've painted us as, in which case your whole argument falls apart, and my head explodes because I don't even know WHAT you're trying to say anymore. We're not all conservatives, and you're "aware of the diversity" of our country, but the fact that so far we haven't managed to pass a bill to extend marriage to same sex couples is proof of "how conservative we are," and "how unwilling to change" "we," whatever you mean by "we," are? 




Scali said:


> I never said it was you. But it was a blatant demonstration of intolerance.


_
Huh?_ You just lost me.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> You don't need to get so defensive dude, I'm just trying to explain in another way.


 
I do need to get defensive, because regardless of whether your intentions are good or not, you are setting up the Americans against me.
Your statements try to paint me as someone who hates the US/Americans, which is patently false.

We already went over the rest, and we already know that we don't agree on these issues. So I REALLY don't want to go over them again.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> "The US" in that statement means the government of the US.



Oh, so NOW you're talking about our government. Sorry, so this: 



> It just shows how conservative the US is, how they aren't willing to change their way of thinking in any way. In other countries (even one just north of the US) marriages have been extended (which I think is a better term than 'redefined' in this case) to include same-sex couples, no problem. Why can't the US do that?



Was directed entirely at Bush, and not at Americans?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I do need to get defensive, because regardless of whether your intentions are good or not, you are setting up the Americans against me.
> Your statements try to paint me as someone who hates the US/Americans, which is patently false.
> 
> We already went over the rest, and we already know that we don't agree on these issues. So I REALLY don't want to go over them again.



Now who's being overly defensive and emotional? I'm setting people up against you? You're doing a decent enough job of that on your own


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> Was directed entirely at Bush, and not at Americans?


 
Depends on how you look at it.
It took a lot of votes to put Bush in the White House...
And I suppose we could also extend it to the future president, because as far as I know, neither Obama nor McCain will legalize gay marriage nationwide. Apparently they get more votes that way?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> Depends on how you look at it.
> It took a lot of votes to put Bush in the White House...
> And I suppose we could also extend it to the future president, because as far as I know, neither Obama nor McCain will legalize gay marriage nationwide. Apparently they get more votes that way?



But Obama may give them rights to civil unions


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> Depends on how you look at it.
> It took a lot of votes to put Bush in the White House...
> And I suppose we could also extend it to the future president, because as far as I know, neither Obama nor McCain will legalize gay marriage nationwide. Apparently they get more votes that way?



You can't have it both ways, dude. If you're saying that your comment about how "conservative and unwilling to change their mind" the US was was just about the US government, and not about Americans in general, but then in the same breath that because the government was elected then it must speak for the people, then really what you're saying is that you think the government is coonservative and unwilling to change, AND you think that it's a fair representation of the will of the people. 

And, in this post: 



Scali said:


> Well, I hate to say, but these people simply don't have a clue about what marriage is to the government, state, law and that sort of thing.
> Church and state *are* separated in the US. Why does the general public not know that? It sounds like the ignorance of the people is forcing the government to side-step issues like gay marriage because of the people's misconception of what a marriage is.
> 
> 
> ...



It seems pretty clear that you're talking about "the people of the US" or the "general public."


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Anyway, I'm going to leave this one for the Canadians and ex-pats, since evidently the fact that I'm an American makes me untrustworthy about America, in your eyes.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Drew said:


> You can't have it both ways, dude. If you're saying that your comment about how "conservative and unwilling to change their mind" the US was was just about the US government, and not about Americans in general, but then in the same breath that because the government was elected then it must speak for the people, then really what you're saying is that you think the government is coonservative and unwilling to change, AND you think that it's a fair representation of the will of the people.


 
Why exactly can't I have it both ways?
If I say "government" then indeed I'm talking about the people that have been elected to represent the general public, so it indeed aims to be a fair representation of the will of *the majority of* the people. That's how it works in a democracy, is it not?

I think we should really be debating to what extent the government represents the majority... And it also seems that you consider yourself part of this majority on *every* issue? Because you can't seem to detach your own person from any comment on the government/majority of the people.

I know that a majority is 51&#37; or more. So it could be that up to 49% does not share the opinion of the majority on an issue. Therefore it's quite common that any random individual does not agree with his or her government on any specific issue. So when I speak of a majority or government or such, I am generally not of the impression that I am directly talking to an individual from that country. I never try to judge an individual by the majority of his or her country, because that simply doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I know that a majority is 51&#37; or more. So it could be that up to 49% does not share the opinion of the majority on an issue. Therefore it's quite common that any random individual does not agree with his or her government on any specific issue. So when I speak of a majority or government or such, I am generally not of the impression that I am directly talking to an individual from that country. I never try to judge an individual by the majority of his or her country, because that simply doesn't make sense at all.



Um, so why the direct, specific attacks on the American general public for "not knowing" about the separation of church and state, for being "ignorant," and still being in the Dark Ages, in this post? 

If you're trying to say in your above post that you are perfectly aware that the US government does not speak for at least 49% of Americans (and with current approval ratings of the Bush Administration hovering in the upper 20's, I would argue that the real number is actually quite a bit higher than 49%), then why are you then saying that the current administration is a perfectly fine surrogate for public opinion, and that specifically the american general public are "ignorant," and the american public doesn't understand the seperation of church and state? 

Which is it, the american public or the administration? If it's the former, then as a member of the American public I'm insulted, with good cause, and if it's the later, then I would ask you please restrict your comments about how "conservative" and "unwilling to change" on social issues to the Bush administration and not to the "general public," because if it IS in fact the later then you have to acknowledge the fact that the specific policies you're speaking about are not reflective of the American public, and thus it is not fair to generalize about Americans based upon the administration's stance.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

I'm not going to comment on this anymore, but I'd like you to acknowledge that:
- Outside of two threads regarding the election, I never made any comments on America or its government AT ALL in any thread.
- I never treated anyone on this forum differently because he or she was American
- I never made generalizations such as "All Americans are..." (any statements were always about a certain majority, group or representation thereof in a certain context).
- I never accused anyone directly of belonging to a certain group of people under discussion
- I never assumed anyone having a certain opinion because that opinion might be popular under a certain group of people
- I never called out anyone because he or she is American ("You're an American, so ...")


----------



## Thomas (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> - I never made generalizations such as "All Americans are..." (any statements were always about a certain majority, group or representation


No?


> Yes, my remark was about how Obama basically does the same, they're just pissed that the Republicans now stole their idea
> 
> I must say though, politics are really easy with just two major parties. Everything is so clear, so black-and-white.
> Americans love to think in black-and-white terms anyway.
> ...



I think sweeping generalizations are just what you did, and if you read through that other thread and this one, you will see that quite a few people think the same way.

I agreed with you on a few (good) points. However, you are being very stubborn about your views and very persistent with your arguing, and I can see how a lot of people get frustrated and annoyed by this.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 7, 2008)

That's the fucked up thing, we ALL agree that same sex marriages (civil unions, or religious ones, if they can find a priest to do it) should be legal. I like his country's approach better as well, that even if you do a religious ceremony, you still have to go to city hall. It shows that there is a CLEAR distinction and separation of church and state, as it should be. It's just the way he puts forth his arguments, it insults (whether intentional or not) US citizens. On top of that, you did claim to not be talking about the American people, just the government, then later on switch gears and say that since the government is a representation of the majority of the people, that this must be a representation of the opinions of the majority of the US. At least pick one stance and stick to it.


----------



## Scali (Oct 7, 2008)

Thomas said:


> I think sweeping generalizations are just what you did, and if you read through that other thread and this one, you will see that quite a few people think the same way.


 
That's not a sweeping generalization. It doesn't say "All americans", and from the context it should be clear that it doesn't mean that.

Do you ever read a paper?
Don't they often use phrasings such as "Washington decided this-and-that"?
Do they really mean Washington? And with that literally every single person in Washington?
No, when they write something like that, they usually mean the government that happens to reside in Washington. They assume that the reader will place it in the proper context.


----------



## NegaTiveXero (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> I never said it was you. But it was a blatant demonstration of intolerance.



A blatant demonstration of intolerance for your intolerance.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> That's not a sweeping generalization. It doesn't say "All americans", and from the context it should be clear that it doesn't mean that.



That is such a fine splitting-of-hairs, I don't know if I should be applauding you for finding a new and creative way of trying to back away from a statement you'd made, or just throw up in disgust. Like, we're approaching "it depends on the definition of 'is'" level here, dude. 

I think, and if the rest of the board disagrees please say so, that if we're using a word like "Americans" which by definition means "citizens of the United States," then unless you're specifically modifying it to say otherwise, it is pretty reasonable to define it comprehensively, and in fact it is more reasonable to take an expansive definition than a restrictive one. If you use a word that refers to all citizens of a country, and you don't specifically exclude any group of citizens, then it's pretty reasonable to conclude you're talking about all of them, no? 

So, if someone says "Americans love to think in black-and-white terms," to me that implies you're talking about all Americans. 

Now, you may have simply misspoken and meant to say "_Some_ Americans love to think in black and white terms," and if you want to apologize to the rest of the Americans that you weren't speaking of, then go right ahead, I'm more than prepared to graciously accept. 

Now, again, let me repeat - I agree with you on same-sex marraige. Again, *I agree with you on same sex marraige*. I just think that using broad, sweeping generalizations to condemn americans for not having sucessfully passed a law allowing it probably won't win you too many American friends.


----------



## Drew (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> That's not a sweeping generalization. It doesn't say "All americans", and from the context it should be clear that it doesn't mean that.
> 
> Do you ever read a paper?
> Don't they often use phrasings such as "Washington decided this-and-that"?
> ...



Interesting argument, but there's a big difference - "Washington" is singular. "Americans" is not. 

Had the phrase been "Washingtonians decided this-and-that," then yes, I think it's fair to assume that they really mean "every single person in Washington has collectively decided this-and-that." 

Superficially, they're very similar, I agree. However, grammatically (and in turn structurally), they are VERY different.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali, although you said that you aren't going to comment on it anymore, I must post this. 

The only thing you have to do is put the adjective "some" in front of "Americans" in the context that you used it and this debate would not exist. 

That's all. We are saying that when you say "Americans," it means "citizens of America" and would thereby apply to all people in it. 

_This is a grammatical issue_. 

You may very well mean "some Americans," but when you write it, you say only "Americans," which is a broad and very inclusive terms. 

The problem is that it sets the tone of your posts. 

So I repeat: _use the word "some" in front of Americans when not talking about each and every individual in the nation. _

That's it.


----------



## Naren (Oct 7, 2008)

Scali said:


> That's not a sweeping generalization. It doesn't say "All americans", and from the context it should be clear that it doesn't mean that.
> 
> Do you ever read a paper?
> Don't they often use phrasings such as "Washington decided this-and-that"?
> ...



 I can't believe you're actually saying this. If I said "Blacks are criminals," you don't think people of African descent would get angry? "Oh, don't you ever read a paper? I meant 'Some black people are criminals.'"

I would say that you should learn English, but I'm sure that Dutch is the same in this regard. If you put no qualifier before the word to specify "some," "many," "a few," "a lot" or whatever, saying a word in the plural like that means ALL or at least virtually all.

The Washington example is nothing like saying "Americans" or "French" or "Parisians" or whatever.

If I said, "Parisians are ignorant," no one would take it to mean "well, some Parisians are ignorant." 

I've watched you change position several times in the last few pages, once again taking the position of the innocent open-minded individual who could never possibly do any wrong... I think that you've realized you're wrong on several points, but just don't want to admit it.


----------



## Scali (Oct 8, 2008)

All I can say is that it seems like some people here have a huge chip on their shoulder.


----------



## Naren (Oct 8, 2008)

Yes, and at least you realize it... The first step to recovery is realizing that you have a problem.


----------



## Scali (Oct 8, 2008)

By the way, I didn't mean 'some', I did mean 'most' or 'the majority of', which is commonly left out if the rest of the context already made it clear.
So I'd like to refer to my earlier post that 'most' or 'majority of' rarely reflects an individual directly, and taking offense (especially when they actually state that they are NOT part of the majority) is indeed having a chip on one's shoulder.

You might never admit it, but I know I'm right, and I'm quite sure that other non-Americans will agree (they have a less clouded view of the situation).


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 8, 2008)

Naren said:


> I can't believe you're actually saying this. If I said "Blacks are criminals," you don't think people of African descent would get angry? "Oh, don't you ever read a paper? I meant 'Some black people are criminals.'"



I was going to use the same example, but thought it might get me in trouble


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 8, 2008)

Scali said:


> You might never admit it, but I know I'm right, and I'm quite sure that other non-Americans will agree (they have a less clouded view of the situation).



What exactly is it you're accusing the Americans (or as you put it, most) again? Oh yeah, intolerance, and being unwilling to change their ways. Pot and kettle dude.


----------



## Scali (Oct 8, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> What exactly is it you're accusing the Americans (or as you put it, most) again? Oh yeah, intolerance, and being unwilling to change their ways. Pot and kettle dude.


 
This has nothing to do with tolerance.
I am saying that Americans demand an unreasonable amount of 'political correctness' from people discussing them or their country.
They seem overly sensitive to that sort of thing (false sense of pride or even arrogance about their culture or country?).
And I am saying that other non-Americans will agree with me on that.


----------



## Naren (Oct 8, 2008)

Scali said:


> This has nothing to do with tolerance.
> I am saying that Americans demand an unreasonable amount of 'political correctness' from people discussing them or their country.
> They seem overly sensitive to that sort of thing (false sense of pride or even arrogance about their culture or country?).
> And I am saying that other non-Americans will agree with me on that.



As Drew will attest to, I'm one of the least patriotic people on this forum. I'm much much less patriotic about the US than you are about the Netherlands. You don't see me coming in here and going "Oh, the US is better because we do it this way." Chris basically said that he'll rejoice the day that I renounce my American citizenship because he's embarassed that I'm an American - because of my overly negative views towards the US. I don't agree, but I find it hilarious that you think I have some sense of pride and arrogance about being American. 

If you looked at it clearly, you'd realize that you are doing everything that you are accusing Americans of doing.

And here you are making another sweeping generalization about Americans. If I got a 100 yen piece for everytime you made an unfounded sweeping generalization, I'd be rich.

You'll also notice that the person who is DISAGREEING with you is a non-American.


----------



## Jachop (Oct 8, 2008)

I don't think Americans are necessarily more conservative than Europeans. It's hard to compare as well since the US is one big country and Europe are very many small countries, with quite different political agendas. I'm sure Americans notice huge political differences between, say, New York and Texas no? 

With that being said, American politics does have more of an conservative tone. What's the reason behind this? I think it's because of the vastness of the country. Domestic politics with such a big area to cover, and you have to reach out to a lot of groups - many of them conservative (like a huge part of the midwest).

Now, I'm not American, but I think this is a reasonable explanation, no?


----------



## Scali (Oct 8, 2008)

Naren said:


> As Drew will attest to, I'm one of the least patriotic people on this forum. I'm much much less patriotic about the US than you are about the Netherlands. You don't see me coming in here and going "Oh, the US is better because we do it this way." Chris basically said that he'll rejoice the day that I renounce my American citizenship because he's embarassed that I'm an American - because of my overly negative views towards the US. I don't agree, but I find it hilarious that you think I have some sense of pride and arrogance about being American.


 
There you go again... Did I say anything about YOU? No I didn't!
I said 'they', referring to the people that argued I can't talk about the US "because I don't live there".
If you guys didn't have such a big chip on your shoulder and try as hard as you can to apply everything that is said to yourself and interpret it in the most insulting way possible, we'd all be a big happy family.



Jachop said:


> I don't think Americans are necessarily more conservative than Europeans. It's hard to compare as well since the US is one big country and Europe are very many small countries, with quite different political agendas. I'm sure Americans notice huge political differences between, say, New York and Texas no?


 
I think Europe has become closer to the US in recent years.
We have a European government, similar to the federal US government, and countries part of the European Union can be seen as US states in many ways. We also have a common currency in the Euro (although not everyone uses it).


----------



## Naren (Oct 8, 2008)

Scali said:


> There you go again... Did I say anything about YOU? No I didn't!
> I said 'they', referring to the people that argued I can't talk about the US "because I don't live there".
> If you guys didn't have such a big chip on your shoulder and try as hard as you can to apply everything that is said to yourself and interpret it in the most insulting way possible, we'd all be a big happy family.



Yes, you did. You said "Americans" and the "they" refers to those Americans (nowhere in your post do you say "the people who argued I couldn't talk about the US." You said "Americans demand... . They..." Do I need to explain grammatical structure to you?). I am an American. Therefore I fall into the group of people included in that statement. I did not make this about me. _You_ did.

Maybe I'll say something negative about the Dutch and when you say that you aren't that way, I'll be as annoying as possible about it with "Did I say anything about YOU?! No, I didn't. I said 'the Dutch.'"


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 8, 2008)

Based on my limited experience with people in the Netherlands, I think it's fair to say that the Dutch are overly argumentative and have strong anti-US sentiment.


----------



## Scali (Oct 8, 2008)

Naren said:


> Maybe I'll say something negative about the Dutch and when you say that you aren't that way, I'll be as annoying as possible about it with "Did I say anything about YOU?! No, I didn't. I said 'the Dutch.'"


 
Problem with that theory is that I don't give a rodent's backside about that sort of thing, so I probably wouldn't even respond in the first place... Let alone tell you to shut up because "you don't live there".

Perhaps it's just lack of self-confidence. I know what I am and what I am not, so I don't take things personally when they don't apply to me. Also, I don't really care for my country, so if other people don't like it... well, that makes two of us.


----------



## TonalArchitect (Oct 8, 2008)

Here it is, nice and simple:

Because you say "Americans," 



Scali said:


> By the way, I didn't mean 'some', I did mean 'most' or 'the majority of', which is commonly left out if the rest of the context already made it clear.


 
and by this quote you do assure us that you meant the majority, we are assumed to be part of this group.

It's not that you're insulting my country, but it's that _because of the lack of an adjective like "conservative" to describe this group it includes us_ _automatically_. It's not that we are over-sensitive or hyperpatriotic or anything. 

But, again, _because of the language _you are_, _whether you want to or not, putting us in with them because of the inclusiveness of the term "Americans."

Therefore, _because of the GODDAMN *language*_, you are effectively stereotyping us. If this was your intent or not is irrelevant, it's the result. 

So all you have to do to end this silly argument is to use an adjective in front of Americans, because we are not a huge, amorphous political blob with the same political and world-views. 



Scali said:


> So I'd like to refer to my earlier post that 'most' or 'majority of' rarely reflects an individual directly, and taking offense (especially when they actually state that they are NOT part of the majority) is indeed having a chip on one's shoulder.



By definition "majority" would have to reflect many individuals directly because it's the _majority_. 



Scali said:


> You might never admit it, but I know I'm right, and I'm quite sure that other non-Americans will agree (they have a less clouded view of the situation).



1.) We're not saying some Americans aren't conservative. Or even many. 

2.) We just want to say that you are, perhaps unwittingly, stereotyping us because "Americans" is such a broad term. The only generalization you could make is that Americans live in North America (but, even that doesn't hold true all the time: look at Naren in Tokyo, and other U.S. citizens abroad).


----------



## Scali (Oct 8, 2008)

TonalArchitect said:


> and by this quote you do assure us that you meant the majority, we are assumed to be part of this group.


 
That's your problem. I don't know if you are part of that group or not, and I don't really care. You should know whether you belong to the group or not, and do what you want with that information, I don't care.
I am not a majority, I am an individual, and I assume everyone else is aswell.



TonalArchitect said:


> Therefore, _because of the GODDAMN *language*_, you are effectively stereotyping us. If this was your intent or not is irrelevant, it's the result.


 
Stereotypes are often true for a majority, although they might not apply to every individual.



TonalArchitect said:


> So all you have to do to end this silly argument is to use an adjective in front of Americans, because we are not a huge, amorphous political blob with the same political and world-views.


 
Firstly, it's too late to change anything now, I already posted it, and it was quoted many times.
Secondly, in case you didn't get it yet. I don't AGREE with that. I am an intelligent and literate person, and I deliberately chose to write the things I did in the way I did. I stand by what I said and how I said it, and I don't want to tone it down and make it more politically correct for anyone.
And that is the end of it.



TonalArchitect said:


> By definition "majority" would have to reflect many individuals directly because it's the _majority_.


 
That is not the point I was making though. My point was that I never directly addressed any individual participating in this thread.



TonalArchitect said:


> 2.) We just want to say that you are, perhaps unwittingly, stereotyping us because "Americans" is such a broad term. The only generalization you could make is that Americans live in North America (but, even that doesn't hold true all the time: look at Naren in Tokyo, and other U.S. citizens abroad).


 
Perhaps I overestimated the audience, but I assumed that it was painfully obvious that this was the case and 'Americans' or 'the US' was never to be taken literally, because there are VERY few contexts in which those broad terms would make any sense at all in a purely literal sense. As I say, such 'generalizations' aren't really generalizations, and are commonly used in newspapers etc, because it takes too much time and becomes too terse to type every single sentence out in such a way that it completely encompasses everything you do and do not mean to say by it. This is only done by legal experts, for obvious reasons. I see no reason why I need to talk like a lawyer on an internet forum to make sure people with a huge chip on their shoulder won't jump into some kind of far-fetched loophole and claim they're insulted or whatever.
I have two words for those people: grow up.


----------



## Drew (Oct 8, 2008)

Scali said:


> You might never admit it, *but I know I'm right, *and I'm quite sure that other non-Americans will agree (they have a less clouded view of the situation).



Way to sound mature, dude. Really. 

I actually flat-out disagree with TonalArchitect - he was correct in post #148, but then he scaled back his definition in 162. "Americans" isn't the same as "majority of Americans," or else there would be no point in using "majority of" in that phrase. It'd be completely redundant. Rather, what "majority of" does is modify the noun "Americans," which refers to the collective pool of people from America. 


So, when you say "Americans are..." and you're NOT using any sort of modifier, you're not talking about the majority - grammatically speaking, you're talking about all possible instances of the singular noun "American." 

So, again, I refer you to my point below: 




Drew said:


> Interesting argument, but there's a big difference - "Washington" is singular. "Americans" is not.
> 
> Had the phrase been "Washingtonians decided this-and-that," then yes, I think it's fair to assume that they really mean "every single person in Washington has collectively decided this-and-that."
> 
> Superficially, they're very similar, I agree. However, grammatically (and in turn structurally), they are VERY different.



...which you seem to have conveniently overlooked.


----------



## Naren (Oct 8, 2008)

He is under the misconception that "Americans" does not mean "all Americans" and he does not seem to realize that no newspaper uses such incorrect terminology.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Oct 8, 2008)

What boggles my mind even more than his grammar, is the fact he can't understand why you would feel the need to defend yourself had you been included. I'm not going to get into the whole grammatical debate, but the fact he had to use discrete mathmatics in the last election polls to try and prove he wasn't talking about ALL Americans is pretty telling. If you have to try and use that to clarify and defend your statements, it's probably best to just admit you might have been better off slapping a modifier in front of your statements, but hey, that's just me


----------



## Drew (Oct 8, 2008)

Naren said:


> He is under the misconception that "Americans" does not mean "all Americans" and he does not seem to realize that no newspaper uses such incorrect terminology.



Let me spell it out for him: 

"Washington" - singular noun, colloquially used to refer to the American government, seated in washington. 
"Americans" - plural noun, refering to the pool of all people who may be described by the term "American." No history of colloquial use to refer to anything other than it's literal use.


----------



## eaeolian (Oct 8, 2008)

Let's chill this out, shall we?

(That's not a request, Scali, that's a warning.)

The rest of you, drop it. If he continues to be an ass, he'll get a nap.


----------



## eaeolian (Oct 8, 2008)

I've seen enough. Time to put this thread to bed.


----------

