The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Mon Oct 15, 2018 9:37 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:33 am 
Ishidan wrote:
Hm, interesting.

A statistical analysis of who voted where, from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html">CNN</a>

Almost everything is split clean down the middle...notable exceptions and trends to this(but I am not a mathematician):

--Minorities vote for Kerry, especially African-Americans
--The richer the group, the more they voted for Bush. The "average American", in the 30-50k bracket, was split down the middle.
--Unions favored Kerry--no surprise there.
--Protestants went for Bush. Jews, assorted other religions, and atheists went for Kerry.
--nobody answered whether they were a white evangelical
--The more you go to church, the more you wanted Bush.
...Oh wait, that didn't sound right.
--Military veterans DO favor Bush
--People worried about the economy, taxes, or health care voted for Kerry. People voting for moral values or the war on terror voted for Bush.

There's more, but I have to go now. Entertain yourselves, everyone.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:56 am 
The things I thought were noteworthy are as follows:

Bush's percentages of the vote were higher (or remained the same) for nearly every catagory. The exceptions were homesexuals, people who didn't think they were better off, people who thought the economy was "not good" or "poor", People who thought the US was going in the wrong direction, people who thought that OBL's tapes were "not at all important", people in small towns (huh?), and people in rural communities.

There were a number of odd incongruities, like 25% of people who thought that abortion should be always legal voted for Bush. Either they don't expect Bush to change that or they feel that other issues are more important. I don't expect any significant change there, talking about it is one thing, but if the Republicans ever got around to doing that they'd be dead meat. The same thing goes for gay marriage on the Democratic side of things. Letting the courts decide both issues is politically safe for both sides.

Six percent of folks who disapprove of how Bush is handling the job voted for him anyway.

Finally, 11% of African-Americans voted for Bush and 88% voted for Kerry. What is the lowest percentage of African-Americans that a Democratic presidential candidate has recieved? This may be a record. (Then again I may be full of hamburger.)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 2:46 pm 
Trying to get women of child-bearing age, at least, seems to be a very frustrating project. The abortion-rights organizers are a small movement associated with radical feminism (thanks to very good propaganda by conservatives) while the anti-abortion people are a mass movement led by major politicians and powerful, well-financed activist groups. Seemingly, the people who are solidly pro-reproductive rights or take a moderate position ("legal but rare") either don't like to talk about the subject or take it for granted.

Just among the proposed bills I've heard mentioned in press reports, we have the possibility of abortion providers being tried for capital-offense murder, pregnant women being jailed for endangering their child if they eat the wrong foods, and women being treated as "wards of the state" whenever the state decides they might be an abortion risk.

We could easily, over the next few years get to the point where a woman with a possibility of miscarriage will have to be carefull which states she travels to: in one state, the doctors would try to save her, at least, if they can't save the pregnancy; in another, a miscarriage would be essentially a death sentence, because no doctor would be allowed to take any action that might endanger the fetus.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:35 pm 
I always wonder, why do Anti-abortion people give such a damn about what OTHERS do with their could-be babies
I mean it doesn't affect them directly, the aborted fetuses (or is that feti?) aren't processed for their food or anything sick like that, and they are not going to not get into heaven (if they believe in that) if OTHERS have abortions and they don't .


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:50 pm 
Attilla wrote:
I always wonder, why do Anti-abortion people give such a damn about what OTHERS do with their could-be babies
I mean it doesn't affect them directly, the aborted fetuses (or is that feti?) aren't processed for their food or anything sick like that, and they are not going to not get into heaven (if they believe in that) if OTHERS have abortions and they don't .


Officially, it's because they consider the fetuses to be human beings just like already-born people...So, from their POV, abortion is infanticide. Same thing as killing babies.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 4:55 pm 
but theres not enough space in the world
Anti-abortionism leads to overpopulation


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:10 pm 
Not enough abortions to matter.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:11 pm 
Attilla wrote:
but theres not enough space in the world
Anti-abortionism leads to overpopulation


Perhapse, but by that logic, we should drop bombs on overpopulated areas (again, from the POV of someone who believes abortion is murder. It's not my opinion, though).


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 5:14 pm 
Doesn't matter, it's morally wrong in their (and mine, though I'm firmly pro-choice) eyes. Plus, for Catholics, there's the addition that a if a child dies before being baptized, it's doomed to hell. Which is one of the many reasons I'm no longer part of the Church :P

Finally, many anti-abortionists think the world is going to end within the next few years anyway (and have been thinking that for the last two thousand), so overpopulation isn't a big concern for them.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 04, 2004 7:00 pm 
sun tzu wrote:
Attilla wrote:
but theres not enough space in the world
Anti-abortionism leads to overpopulation

Perhapse, but by that logic, we should drop bombs on overpopulated areas (again, from the POV of someone who believes abortion is murder. It's not my opinion, though).

The entire "overpopulation" argument collapses in the face of any simple metaphor of that sort. There are two ethical questions at the heart of the abortion debate:

When does a developing human egg cell become a human being?

What is a woman's moral obligation to an egg cell in her body while it is developing into a human being physically separate from its mother?


All other questions concerning abortions are derived from these two points. An argument that ignores them or requires an answer to be postulated before it is expressed will not be able to convince anyone outside the arguement's point of view.

The most extreme anti-abortion that I know of would be: the egg becomes a human being at conception; anything that endangers it can be considered assault or murder of a human being.
The most extreme pro-abortion would probably be: a woman's right to control her own body is absolute. No other human's rights can supersede this basic right, so society can only make laws/judgements for what occurs after the woman has made her independent decision.

For the overpopulation argument to be made, you must first assume (a) the state has the right to kill human beings for population control or (b) an egg/fetus is not a human being.

Unfortunately, most of the arguments given in public for either side of the debate tend to carry postulated answers to the primary questions, either deliberately or accidentally, and have no power to convince the other side. The activists argue right past each other.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 12:41 pm 
Anh Minh wrote:
Not enough abortions to matter.


Well yes, but the anti-abortionists are saying that we should starve
that or we could always start up Soylent Green


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:10 pm 
TheNovak wrote:
Doesn't matter, it's morally wrong in their (and mine, though I'm firmly pro-choice) eyes. Plus, for Catholics, there's the addition that a if a child dies before being baptized, it's doomed to hell.

Limbo, not hell.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:56 pm 
Limbo was done away with a few years back (Pope whatever decided it doesn't really exist).

If I remember correctly, that would mean unbaptized babies are supposed to go to purgatory or somesuch.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 4:02 pm 
I didn't know Limbo actually existed in the religious sense (or had existed as it were)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 8:36 pm 
There's no such thing as over-population. As the population increases, more people will start croaking and eventually it will stabilize.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:59 pm 
Madcat wrote:
There's no such thing as over-population. As the population increases, more people will start croaking and eventually it will stabilize.

Overpopulation is a human-defined term, of course. For purposes of this discussion, overpopulation is a number of humans on the planet consuming resources at a rate that violates our ethical and/or aesthetic standards. Beyond that, we worry about the "natural" population controls we share with other animals: conflict, famine, epidemic, and environmental degradation. Most of us would like to avoid overpopulating the planet to the degree that these natural controls are triggered.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 1:52 pm 
I define overpopulation, as when theres not enough food for everyone, or space


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:00 pm 
Attilla wrote:
I define overpopulation, as when theres not enough food for everyone, or space


Hm...
Technically, we have more than enough food and space for all of mankind. It's the distribution that's screwy.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:03 pm 
yeah, but do you want random people you don't know sleeping in YOUR bed and raiding YOUR larder?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:28 pm 
sun tzu wrote:
Attilla wrote:
I define overpopulation, as when theres not enough food for everyone, or space

Hm...
Technically, we have more than enough food and space for all of mankind. It's the distribution that's screwy.

I've heard that, and its hard to take seriously, given the ongoing degradation of so many important resources.

I read one article (by a political columnist) where all the fellow did was divide the square miles of land surface on the earth by the world population. Anyone want to trade my acre of Baffin Island tundra for your acre of sand dunes in the ergs of the Sahara? It may sound like a silly basis for an economic theory, but anti-environmentalist scholars and pundits have written whole books using the same sort of logic.

I firmly believe in helping the impoverished peoples of the world better their condition, but like most people, I have limits to how much I'd be willing to impoverish myself in the pursuit of social justice. I was brought up poor; it isn't that enobling an experience.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:29 pm 
Attilla wrote:
yeah, but do you want random people you don't know sleeping in YOUR bed and raiding YOUR larder?

All the more reason to keep a pet badger. And underfeed him.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 2:38 pm 
Berken wrote:
sun tzu wrote:
Attilla wrote:
I define overpopulation, as when theres not enough food for everyone, or space

Hm...
Technically, we have more than enough food and space for all of mankind. It's the distribution that's screwy.

I've heard that, and its hard to take seriously, given the ongoing degradation of so many important resources.

I read one article (by a political columnist) where all the fellow did was divide the square miles of land surface on the earth by the world population. Anyone want to trade my acre of Baffin Island tundra for your acre of sand dunes in the ergs of the Sahara? It may sound like a silly basis for an economic theory, but anti-environmentalist scholars and pundits have written whole books using the same sort of logic.

I firmly believe in helping the impoverished peoples of the world better their condition, but like most people, I have limits to how much I'd be willing to impoverish myself in the pursuit of social justice. I was brought up poor; it isn't that enobling an experience.


Okay; I haven't made the calculations myself, and I don't have a link, so feel free to doubt what I say...But I read somewhere that a human being needed some 2100 calories (or kilocalories? I can't remember the exact unit) worth of food per day, and that the world's agriculture produced the equivalent of 2800 calories per person per day.
Doesn't see impossible to me. I mean, have you seen the amount of food we produce in the Western world? And much of it doesn't get used.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't take environmentalist measures, of course. The damage to the environment is real.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 4:35 pm 
Raif wrote:
Limbo was done away with a few years back (Pope whatever decided it doesn't really exist).

He got tired of all the unbaptized babies turning into giant multicolored frog-men, huh?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 5:08 pm 
Sun: I don't remember the unit either, but I think it's the "metabolic consommation" or somesuch. Meaning that it's what you need provided you don't move around too much. If we all stopped moving, who would grow the food?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 9:25 pm 
Anh Minh wrote:
Sun: I don't remember the unit either, but I think it's the "metabolic consommation" or somesuch. Meaning that it's what you need provided you don't move around too much. If we all stopped moving, who would grow the food?


This article seems to be useful. Look for the "skip" link when you click through so you can avoid the ad.

Depending on the person 2100 calories would probably cover "normal" activity levels. The actual amount of calories needed to live if you're not expending extra energy would be something less than that.

Of course 2100 calories verses 2800 calories doesn't leave a huge excess for the spoilage and ineffeciencies in the system.

Berken wrote:
All the more reason to keep a pet badger. And underfeed him.


You're trying to make someone link to that badger song. It's not gonna work.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 06, 2004 11:22 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
LastAmorphStanding wrote:
Raif wrote:
Limbo was done away with a few years back (Pope whatever decided it doesn't really exist).

He got tired of all the unbaptized babies turning into giant multicolored frog-men, huh?


No, he just couldn't bend over backwards like that anymore. Getting old, you know.

How low can YOU go?

_________________
Wielder of the <a href="http://zoo.nightstar.net/viewtopic.php?p=154101&highlight=weapon#top"> javelin-free atl-atl</a>. There's so many more interesting things to throw in the Schlockiverse!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group