Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » "Daddy, today we learned about the Atlantic Triangular Trade". (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: "Daddy, today we learned about the Atlantic Triangular Trade".
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What did the child actually learn about (at least supposedly)? A bust of Eric Blair to the winner.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Slaves, Molasses, Rum.

The pacific triangular trade, also dehumanizing but to a lesser extent, was Silver, Opium, Tea.

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And Peter wins a bust of Eric, Tony Blair's idiot cousin :-)

Seriously, how pathetic can Texas get?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As a political move it would be idiotic.

As an educational move, it's not so bad a label, provided that kids know that slaves were involved. It's more chilling, not desensitizing, to know that humans were simply part of a three-way exchange of "goods." The fact that racism was the means to the profit end, rather than the actual purpose of slavery, does not make it less horrific.

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
msquared
Member
Member # 113

 - posted      Profile for msquared   Email msquared   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I remember learning about this but I thought it had a different name. Of course it has been 30+ years.

msquared

Posts: 3992 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pro-choice is used for pro-abortion and pro-life is used for anti-abortion. That terminology is pretty bad.

Suicide bomber is used to describe someone who is trying to kamikaze, not someone who wants to end their life in a colorful fashion.

So the use of Atlantic Triangular Trade versus the Slave trade doesn't seem that strange a choice. This seems mostly a big deal about nothing.

A good compromise would have been the Atlantic Triangular Slave Trade. Hopefully, they'll work that out in the future. I don't see any kids being permanently harmed by the current terminology.

Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Pro-choice is used for pro-abortion

If that were true, then the mandatory abortion policies of the People's Republic of China would be considered "pro-choice."

There is a pro-choice position distinct from a pro-abortion position. But then when folks fight against a state being able to put "choose life" on a license plate, I'd say that they are pro-abortion masquerading as pro-choice.

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But then when folks fight against a state being able to put "choose life" on a license plate, I'd say that they are pro-abortion masquerading as pro-choice.
I believe very strongly that there are people who would object to a state agreeing to sell "There is no God" license plates who would not describe themselves as being opposed to religious freedom.
Posts: 21394 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
quote:
Originally posted by JWatts:
Pro-choice is used for pro-abortion

If that were true, then the mandatory abortion policies of the People's Republic of China would be considered "pro-choice."

Calling someone pro-abortion doesn't imply they are for mandatory abortions anymore than calling someone pro-baseball implies they believe in a mandatory little league policy.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 888

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
than calling someone pro-baseball implies they believe in a mandatory little league policy.
I have no idea what calling someone "pro-baseball" means or implies. I think you've made the stupidest analogy possible.
Posts: 3086 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Calling someone pro-abortion doesn't imply they are for mandatory abortions anymore than calling someone pro-baseball implies they believe in a mandatory little league policy.
True, but it does seem to imply that they are "for" abortion--that they root for it, exhault in it, are fans of it. I am pretty sure that is far from the case.

Most pro-choice people find abortion pretty much abhorant. In an ideal world, every pregnancy would be for a child that is wanted, and no one would have an abortion. I think everyone agrees that would be wonderful.

But the world and the people therein are far from ideal. People make bad choices, or have bad things happen to them. And while abortion is abhorant, at times the alternative can be worse.

And the person who is most qualified to decide which is worse is the person most directly affected. So that person must make the choice, not some other people not directly affected, or sometimes not affected at all.

So "pro-abortion" rubs those who believe this the wrong way. It makes it sound like they like abortion. "Pro-choice" is closer to the actual philosophy. Just as "anti-abortion" is farther from the actual philosophy of most "pro-lifers."

Posts: 8174 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
But then when folks fight against a state being able to put "choose life" on a license plate, I'd say that they are pro-abortion masquerading as pro-choice.
I believe very strongly that there are people who would object to a state agreeing to sell "There is no God" license plates who would not describe themselves as being opposed to religious freedom.
Choosing life over death is not necessarily a religious proposition, Tom. [LOL] Choose life is as secular a proposition as "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[responding to Wayward and Jwatts]

I strongly recommend the movie "Citizen Ruth (1996)"

Agreed with Aris JWatts has given us an deficient analogy, since pro-baseball doesn't exactly bring to mind folks that think that Baseball, while lamentable, should remain legal. But I have actually seen stupider analogies in my time ...

JWatts is correct that pro-abortion doesn't necessarily mean promoting mandatory abortion. But my argument wasn't limited to that example. Pro-abortion would mean folks actually encouraging abortion, not just folks who think that it's not the government's business. It would be silly to call a teetotaling voter "pro-alcohol" just because he voted against Prohibition. Not everyone things that the government is the answer to all of our problems, JWatts.

[ July 07, 2010, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pro-choice is used for pro-abortion and pro-life is used for anti-abortion. That terminology is pretty bad. "

Not in the school curriculum.

Peter, you seriously think the eejits in Texas are doing this because they want to use a more chilling term? You say "provided the children knew" - well of course if you teach the subject in any kind of truthfulness, they'll have to know. But changing the name is obviously done to take attention AWAY from the "slave" aspect. I'd say knowing that humans were traded at all is chilling enough, regardless of whether those buying the slaves were trading heads up with the source or not. That is just a tidbit.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dave at Work
Member
Member # 1906

 - posted      Profile for Dave at Work   Email Dave at Work   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I saw the term triangle trade used when teaching about the slave trade in the 70's and 80's. That was in Rhode Island, West Virginia, Indiana and Illinois. I haven't been following this in the news, but from what I've read in this thread, Texas isn't exactly pioneering this.

I always thought that pro-baseball implied that the baseball players were paid. [Wink]

Posts: 1928 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
Peter, you seriously think the eejits in Texas are doing this because they want to use a more chilling term?

No. Nor do I think that it's an attempt to whitewash slavery. From where I stand it looks like a power struggle. Some of the proposals are arguably an improvement, some are neutral, some are a step backwards.

quote:
That is just a tidbit.
It's often better to put your best arguments first. This one isn't all that strong. Rhode Island isn't exactly a bastion of cultural conservatism.
Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"No. Nor do I think that it's an attempt to whitewash slavery."

Then what? Seriously, why would you insist on taking the word "slavery" out of the topic if not to distance the issue?

"It's often better to put your best arguments first. This one isn't all that strong. Rhode Island isn't exactly a bastion of cultural conservatism. "

Come again?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
"Pro-choice" is closer to the actual philosophy. Just as "anti-abortion" is farther from the actual philosophy of most "pro-lifers."

Except that "pro-lifers" are not necessarily concerned with life except those lives threatened by abortion. "Pro-life" refers specifically to the lives of the not-yet-born not to life in general - for example the lives of the people on death row or the lives of those threatened by war or poverty. Or, come to think of it, accidental miscarriage. "Anti-abortion" is closer to the actual philosophy than "pro-life".
Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
"No. Nor do I think that it's an attempt to whitewash slavery."

Then what? Seriously, why would you insist on taking the word "slavery" out of the topic if not to distance the issue?

"It's often better to put your best arguments first. This one isn't all that strong. Rhode Island isn't exactly a bastion of cultural conservatism. "

Come again?

See Dave's case 1 post up from my reply.
Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I saw the term triangle trade used when teaching about the slave trade in the 70's and 80's. That was in Rhode Island, West Virginia, Indiana and Illinois. I haven't been following this in the news, but from what I've read in this thread, Texas isn't exactly pioneering this."

I don't mind the term being USED. I'm talking about a rule saying you can't say "slave trade" in the books, and only have to use the euphemism. I know Texas didn't make up the term. I have no problem with kids learning that the slave trade is also known as that.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Agreed with Aris JWatts has given us an deficient analogy, since pro-baseball doesn't exactly bring to mind folks that think that Baseball, while lamentable, should remain legal. But I have actually seen stupider analogies in my time ...

[Big Grin] I knew I should have gone with the bad car analogy instead of the bad sports analogy. [Wink]
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the proposed change, "Atlantic Triangular Trade" was the name of the process whereby slavery was spread. There was not a denial of the process, just a change of the name.

The modification has since been modified. The proposed change is now to call the process "Transatlantic Slave Trade."

Posts: 243 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
[Big Grin] I knew I should have gone with the bad car analogy instead of the bad sports analogy. [Wink]
Hey, at least you were smart enough to avoid a "pro-Mac" or "pro-Windows" analogy. Then you'd have really been in trouble... [Smile]
Posts: 8174 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by RickyB:
I'm talking about a rule saying you can't say "slave trade" in the books, and only have to use the euphemism.

Ah, well if that's the actual rule, that's different, obviously. Like I said, you might consider leading with your better argument.
Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Choosing life over death is not necessarily a religious proposition, Tom. Choose life is as secular a proposition as "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
You missed the point of the analogy, I think. "Choose Life" is a deliberate criticism of people who have chosen the "opposite," insofar as having an abortion is "Death" in that constructed scenario. I can't buy a license plate that says "Vote Democrat" or "Don't Own a Gun."
Posts: 21394 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
vegimo - you have a link showing this is what Texas is now going to call it? Cause I have no problem with "Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade".
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
Choosing life over death is not necessarily a religious proposition, Tom. Choose life is as secular a proposition as "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
You missed the point of the analogy, I think. "Choose Life" is a deliberate criticism of people who have chosen the "opposite,"
The Golden Rule might be taken as a deliberate criticism of selfish bastards. So?

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
[QUOTE]insofar as having an abortion is "Death" in that constructed scenario.

[LOL]

Constructed? You question that abortion involves a death?

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, are you trying to pretend that a "Choose Life" license plate is not a statement of a political position?

[ July 08, 2010, 11:26 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, are you trying to pretend that a "Choose Life" license plate is not a statement of a political position?

??

Where are you pretending that I pretended that?

The golden rule is political too.

I said that these aren't inherently religious statements; never questioned that they are political. But there's no rule of separating politics and state! [LOL]

[ July 08, 2010, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I can't buy a license plate that says "Vote Democrat" or "Don't Own a Gun."

So what? No one was compelled to buy a license plate that said "choose life" either. They were specialty plates, issued by the state. You could opt for other state-approved messages, or for no message at all. If you want a license plate that says "Vote Democrat" or "Don't Own a Gun," then petition your state lawmayers for redress. You could probably pull it off if you lived in DC.

[ July 08, 2010, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was asking not pretending. I don't think the problem with "Choose Life" is that it is religious. I think that there may be restrictions on using state license plates for endorsing specific political positions. Tom's examples of things that aren't on license plates, "Vote Democrat" and "Don't own a gun", are not religious statements; they are political statements.
Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I was asking not pretending.

in the future, if you want to ask an honest question rather than making a rhetorical pseudoquestion, I suggest that you avoid starting it with "are you trying to pretend." [Mad]

quote:
I don't think the problem with "Choose Life" is that it is religious.
I was responding to Tom's crappy analogy about "there is no God" license plates.

quote:
I think that there may be restrictions on using state license plates for endorsing specific political positions.
Restrictions based on what? State governments are sovereign except for when the constitution says otherwise. What constitutional restriction is there on the state endorsing a specific political position?

quote:
Tom's examples of things that aren't on license plates, "Vote Democrat" and "Don't own a gun", are not religious statements; they are political statements.
Yes, and to that, I replied:

quote:
. If you want a license plate that says "Vote Democrat" or "Don't Own a Gun," then petition your state lawmayers for redress. You could probably pull it off if you lived in DC.
"Vote Democrat" is another of Tom's crappy analogies, since it's not a political position, but a political party. But "don't own a gun" is a fair analogy for an political statement that a legislature should be able to put on optional specialty plates.

[ July 08, 2010, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, this is old but may be helpful to you.

http://www.slate.com/id/2078247

Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was responding to Tom's crappy analogy about "there is no God" license plates.
It wasn't a crappy analogy. In fact, I specifically cited something that wasn't a political position just so you wouldn't complain that I was only calling out political positions. That you ran with it as an example of some kind of wacky anti-religion argument is not my problem, but generously I chose to accomodate you by choosing two other examples which weren't religious at all in hopes that you might recognize the common thread. [Smile]

You can of course make the argument that a license plate which says "Educated children are our future" is advocating increasing funding to schooling and thus being used to broadcast a controversial political opinion. But the distinction here, of course, is that "fund schools" is a positive statement; it's saying that you should do that, and not that you shouldn't -- even by implication -- do some other specific thing.

By contrast, "don't own a gun" and "there is no God" are statements which can be construed -- rightly or wrongly -- as criticisms of specific choices. "Vote Democrat" is borderline, as it's arguably more pro-Democrat than anti-non-Democrat; I included it for precisely that reason -- because "Choose Life," on its face, seems to be a positive statement; it's saying that life's a good thing, and we should choose it. Who would disagree? Sadly, though, that's not how the statement is really meant; what is implied is that the other choice -- which, in an abortion-related context, is abortion -- amounts to choosing Death.

It's like having a license plate that says "Don't be Hitler. Shave your facial hair."

Posts: 21394 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Pete, this is old but may be helpful to you.

http://www.slate.com/id/2078247

Thank you.
quote:
License plates became a constitutional issue in 1977 when the Supreme Court decided Wooley v. Maynard, a case involving a family of Jehovah's Witnesses who had taped over the "Live Free or Die" part of their New Hampshire license plate. The Maynards claimed that New Hampshire violated their free speech rights by forcing them to broadcast a political sentiment with which they disagreed. The high court ruled that states could not force individuals to be "mobile billboards" for messages they loathed. The "Choose Life" cases don't involve this sort of compelled speech, however, since no one in any state is forced to purchase the specialty plates—people buy them voluntarily.
(setting aside Tom's game-playing, bad analogies, and argument reconstructions to justify himself) I think that Tom's substantive argument is better summed up by your article here:
quote:
The legal issue isn't complicated, and it helps to separate it from your feelings about abortion. It's a free speech question: Can state governments endorse speech representing only one side of an issue as controversial as abortion? Has the state, by opening up license plates as a forum for private speech, incurred a constitutional obligation to allow speakers of every viewpoint equal access to that forum?
The trouble is, that's a mangling of two very different questions, only one of which is valid and relevant: "Can state governments endorse speech representing only one side of an issue as controversial as abortion?"

But realizing that there's not really a valid argument against that proposition, the anti-s pose another question with an arguably false premise:

quote:
Has the state, by opening up license plates as a forum for private speech
That's not necessarily what the state's doing. The state often asks for private volunteers to support a state cause, whether it's disaster relief or whatever.

"say no to meth" impliedly criticizes those that use meth.

If the people don't like their state government's position, they can vote to repeal it. This court interference is precisely the sort of thing that federalism was designed to prevent. Different states may have different characters, different positions, within the Union. The 14th Amendment was supposed to guarantee a minimum level of human rights within the Union, not to erase the character and view differences between states.

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 6161

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Meth is illegal; abortion is not. States may have "character" but I don't see how they can have an official position on controversial issues without discriminating against other, minority but still legal, positions.
Posts: 2165 | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Say no to alcohol," then.

quote:
States may have "character" but I don't see how they can have an official position on controversial issues without discriminating against other, minority but still legal, positions.
Correct. So what, constitutionally?
Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aside from the constitutional question, where you're clearly wrong --

my original point is that those objecting to a "choose life" message are not acting out of a "pro-choice" position, but from a pro abortion position. One might a woman's right to choose abortion, without legal restrictions, but still wish that she be encouraged to choose life.

Posts: 42013 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you think a state should sell "say no to alcohol" plates? Or "choose lucidity," with the implication that those who drink have chosen not to be lucid?

quote:
my original point is that those objecting to a "choose life" message are not acting out of a "pro-choice" position, but from a pro abortion position.
And I have already explained twice why you're wrong. Perhaps you might want to read what I've written to understand why?
Posts: 21394 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
vegimo
Member
Member # 6023

 - posted      Profile for vegimo   Email vegimo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow - another conversation between Reg and Stan.


RickyB:
here and here

Posts: 243 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1