Kirk Cameron defends Todd Akin

[remirol]

That reminds me, I grew up in Price Utah. I knew of ONE black person in the entire Price-Wellington-Spring Glen area, and he went to our church. The most 'racial' mixing we got were Mexicans and Navajo. I went to a private Christian school for my first eight years, and everyone in the school went to the church providing the building and the teachers, and everyone looked the same. Can't blame large cities for segregating when entire STATES get away with it.

There are always a number of people who will self-segregate at any given opportunity. That's just who they are, and there are more of them in a major city than there are in East Bumblethorpe, North Dakota, so it's actually possible to _have_ ethnic enclaves within a city. But there are also a number of people who _won't_, and they populate the multicultural areas in those major cities.

The way you move people over from "those who will" to "those who won't" is via the nature of cities -- after they've involuntarily interacted with enough people who aren't like them, but turn out to be similar in other ways, they start to realize that self-segregating is actually kind of boring. Sometimes this happens only over generations (cf. New York, etc.).

As far as smaller areas... well, Avalon points out quite adequately what happens in East Bumblethorpe:

People anywhere can be incredibly intolerant, and you never know what's going to set them off. And if you are the object of intolerance in a small community, that's pretty much it for you. You're done, there's nowhere to go; you deal with the shunning and the nastiness or you move.

They move. Quite rapidly the small communities become homogeneous -- and frankly, it's very easy for this to degenerate into the 'One of Us' mentality as generations pass.

 

[carlitos]

Damn, you're vicious.

No kidding. Wow.

Cities bulkanize.

Vulcanize society!
Make the pie higher!

 

[remirol]

Just to address one point -- I've lived in small communities in the Midwest, not the South, so your description of how Southern communities work may very well be accurate and outside my experience.

Which general areas in particular?

The only Southern place I ever lived was Nashville.

Does correlate with the "cities=blue", though interestingly _only_ Davidson County in the Nashville area went for Obama. (no conclusions drawn, just noting as I go)

(figures from Dave Leip's Atlas)

 

[TheSapient]

I can't agree. I've seen how disaffected, insular, and downright rude people become in the big cities. People don't know their neighbors' names; they don't think twice about small acts of cruelty or selfishness as long as they can get away with them.
Would you leave your briefcase unattended on the sidewalk in a big city for even five minutes? I certainly wouldn't, but I'd do it in my hometown without thinking twice.


I'd say it's blue voters that do that.

I've lived in a small town and a big city. I currently live on the very edge of the suburbs of a big metro area. I hardly even see my neighbors where I am now. In the city, I had FAR more contact with the people around me. In the city it is apparent how you actions affect other people, and you change your behavior accordingly. Sure, you encounter more jerks when you encounter more people in general. You also encounter more great people.

It is very difficult to be even a little different in a rural area. Don't eat meat or pork due to your beliefs? Expect to spend a lot of time defending your personal choice. Different religion? People will be bothered. Gay? Don't tell anyone. We have a church every few blocks, but any non-Christians has to deal with protests and hastily erected red tape before they can establish a place for themselves. Hell, we had some Muslims try to buy an church from a group that had moved into a new building, and suddenly that area was not appropriate for a house of worship. The more rural, the more you are expected to conform. And it is that world view that red voters use to support the idea that the government should enforce social norms specific to them.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Is there any hard evidence of this? What was the degree of polarization in the past, and can we really show that it's worse now?

I'm reading a book called "It's Worse than it Looks" that describes this in detail. It mentions an official who wrote a paper warning against partisonship way back in the 1960's, when some politicos were saying that polarization would be good for the government (this was in the days when conservative Democrats hampered attempts to promote civil rights in the South).

Anyway, there is actual hard data to support this, mainly when you analyze voting records. According to one such analysis, the most liberal Republican now votes more conservatively than the most conservative Democrat. This has never been the case before the current congress sat down.

 

[Magyar]

Democrats hate Christians.

Absolutely, if by xians you mean the current crop of uneducated, arrogant racist bigoted delusional people who walk around claiming that they have access to a special channel to a fictitious creator with super powers who conveniently justifies every vial act and thought they have about anyone who isn't like them. Then yes, I fervently and unabashedly state that the world would be a better place without them.

On the other hand if you are talking about nice common people who seek solace and comfort in times of struggle in words and ideas that say there is something bigger then them, then no. As silly as I find those ideas, I actually risked my life to bring those words to people like that when I lived behind the iron curtain and "promoting religion" came with a 20 year hard labor sentence. I was actually convicted in absentia after I escaped.

What have you done besides come on Internet forums and spew goofy stuff about people you don't agree with or know anything about?

 

[TimCallahan]

Democrats are spineless idiots, who won't be happy until we all live and die at the behest of the State.

Do you honestly believe this crap, or are you just trying to get a rise out of the rest of us? Perhaps you're parodying what you see as our views.

Going back to the OP, what are your views regarding rape victims? Are they, as Akin thinks, inured to getting pregnant?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Personally, I find the "hate the sin, not the sinner" types even worse than the vulgar homophobe, sexist, racist, etc.

 

[fuelair]

So you though flat out lying was the best manner in which to reply?


Good on you for not doing that.

Hey, it's what republickers do best. Is it genetics that makes them turn out as talking sphincters?*



This is too easy, I'm going to check on some other topics....................

 

[AvalonXQ]

Do you honestly believe this crap, or are you just trying to get a rise out of the rest of us? Perhaps you're parodying what you see as our views.

The second one.

Going back to the OP, what are your views regarding rape victims? Are they, as Akin thinks, inured to getting pregnant?

I know of no evidence to support that proposition -- which makes its propogation deplorable in my book, since it's essentially a reason to question the veracity of pregnant rape victims.

 

[Corsair 115]

I've long considered that it's not accidental that both coasts and big cities -- people with no sense of community and very little respect for those around them, people who are generally self-interested and self-absorbed and are used to having their needs met by an impersonal infrastructure without having to rely on a network of people with actual names and faces -- vote blue. They don't trust their fellow citizens and like the idea of the State telling everyone what to do. They don't care to create a community of mutual trust and benefits when they can just force it all to happen at gunpoint.

Quite frankly, when you live in this sort of amoral environment where there are no real incentives to treat others well, intrusive government is necessary just to keep society functioning. But blue voters make the mistake of generalizing this to all government policy, and the result is a big government.

In contrast, people in less urban areas -- where actual communities exist, where personal decency and accountability are still considered important, where your needs are often met primarily by your own effort and the work of those around you with State resources providing very little -- vote red.

When you live in this sort of voluntary give-and-take community, a web of personal relationships and interdependencies coupled with self-reliance, intrusive government can really disrupt relationships that must, in order to survive changing circumstances, be flexible. Government is primarily seen as a last-resort weapon to deal with something that has gotten really out of hand, and the intrustion of government into day-to-day affairs is pretty much certain to push things towards failure. Which, again, is why red voters generalize these experiences into a government policy that says "citizens should be trusted; government regulation is bad."

I can't but help be reminded of a The Daily Show segment. It involved a reply to a speech by Sarah Palin during the 2008 election campaign where she praised small town America as the real America. To which Jon Stewart replied that the 2,600 victims of 9/11 in NYC weren't real Americans?

Do you disagree that the coasts and major cities are largely multicultural ...

In regards to that point the Census Bureau web site has copious amounts of data on such things, most of which is freely available. So answering the question of the racial breakdown of any locale is simply a matter of visiting the site and looking up the location. No supposition or guesses needed.

 

[AvalonXQ]

In regards to that point the Census Bureau web site has copious amounts of data on such things, most of which is freely available. So answering the question of the racial breakdown of any locale is simply a matter of visiting the site and looking up the location. No supposition or guesses needed.

It seems unlikely that the census bureau data will successfully deal with things like "how insular or integrated is minority group X," or "are members of minority group X welcome within the mainstream culture."

Which was my point: a community with 700,000 whites and 300,000 non-whites, in stratified areas where mingling is discouraged, may be benefiting less from diversity than a community with 9,000 whites and 1,000 non-whites that are an accepted part of the same culture.

 

[fuelair]

I find it ironic that a Democrat can claim that Democrats don't hate groups while making hateful statements about groups.

Republicans don't believe it's the government's job to engage in certain charitable and protective acts that Democrats believe are necessary for minorities and women.

But hatred? No. Hating others has always been a Democrat speciality.

A Democrat can claim anything but I miss where they/we are trying to control women's bodies, move the country to a legal system no better and likely worse than Sharia Law, trying to take the vote from certain groups under the ruse of the functionally non-existant vote fraud banner. Those three alone scream hatred of the poor, blacks, women, people who do not vote republicker and uppity middle-classers. The thing that demonstrates best the biggest problem is the number of people willing to trade their salaries and rights as workers for a group that will protect them from teh gay and real education that might explain and force them to accept actual science in place of "everything has at least two sides and the right side is the one we say the bibble supports".

Yes, I am not a fan of republickers as they are pro-superstition/anti science, anti-women/pro loss of women's rights (aka" keep 'em barefoot and pregnant"), and pro controlled ballots and voters/anti actual democracy. They smart up a goodly bit and I give them respect - even when we do not agree. They don't, I have no problem with the destruction of the party. It is useless as it now exists.

 

[fuelair]

Is there any hard evidence of this? What was the degree of polarization in the past, and can we really show that it's worse now?

When I was growing up we were (my family - still are) Democrats and some of our friends were Republicans. We disgreed on who was the best guy for president or Senator or Governor but no fights , no screamining and yelling - and damned little reference to religion (mid-50s to 1960) The break started for my purposes with the Nixon loss to Kennedy which brought on electoral communication specialists (aka party pimps) and the idiocies of Goldwater (though I did apologise to a Goldwater supporter when LBJ took us into the war - I knew Goldwater was that stupid, but that Johnson was...........). After that, it was a few side things but then the 80s and the religious right started the descent into hell of the Republican Party and the rise of the foul republickers still with us. (for a bit of evidence, look at the history of Medicare (who worked together to get it in) and civil rights (who worked together to get it in) ).

 

[Corsair 115]

Which was my point: a community with 700,000 whites and 300,000 non-whites, in stratified areas where mingling is discouraged, may be benefiting less from diversity than a community with 9,000 whites and 1,000 non-whites that are an accepted part of the same culture.

The key word being "may". The Census Bureau may not have data on such things, but then, you've not offered any either.

 

[joobie]

Pat Boone is no more Mr. Nice Guy. He plays golf with Alice Cooper. He's gone over to the dark side.

well, he plays golf with vincent furnier, who is a republican.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It looks like your ability to interpret the Bible in ways to suit your political beliefs has found another use, interpreting reality in a way to suit your political beliefs.

I would challenge you to find three instance of my interpreting the Bible in ways to suit my political beliefs. The Bible, as I actually understand it, informs my other beliefs -- not the other way around.
This is something you would understand if you actually had the patience to read what I wrote whether than deciding what it means ahead of time using your "I know nothing but judge everything" goggles. Too much to expect of you, I know.

You are a perfect example of those who I say are Republicans first, Christians second.

Considering I'm not even a Republican, this statement is pretty much nonsense. But it fits in perfectly with your appaling ignorance on just about every other topic.

You have demonstrated zero informed knowledge in any area at all. You seem proud and your complete and total ignorance of any even remotely relevant subject.

How do you dress yourself in the morning?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Doesn't your holy book have some pretty explicit things to say about bearing false witness?

Mine does, yes -- which is why I don't do that.

Nobody is surprised that your own belief system has nothing to say about lying, and that you don't seem particularly averse to doing so.



I look forward to seeing your next scathing scripture addressing your criticisms of my behavior. They would be a little more meaningful if you had ever provided even enough insight to persuade anyone that you even know what they mean.

 

[A'isha]

Mine does, yes -- which is why I don't do that.

So why are you spreading falsehoods about Obama's speech?

Nobody is surprised that your own belief system has nothing to say about lying, and that you don't seem particularly averse to doing so.

Can you point out something I've lied about?

I look forward to seeing your next scathing scripture addressing your criticisms of my behavior. They would be a little more meaningful if you had ever provided even enough insight to persuade anyone that you know what they mean.

So, I guess the answer to "WWJD" is "engage in petty insult-fests on Internet message boards when someone calls you out for saying demonstrably false things for partisan political purposes".

 

[AvalonXQ]

So, I guess the answer to "WWJD" is "engage in petty insult-fests on Internet message boards when someone calls you out for saying demonstrably false things for partisan political purposes".

Yes, I get it, you're just going to keep calling me a hypocrite until something sticks. Easier than having anything valid or substantive to say at least.