Progessive Caucus Convention

[MAS117]

I have talked to the Mayor of Charlotte and if there is rain in the forecast he has given us permission to move and set up in the Charlotte Convention Center.

If you don't mind me asking, why did you even pick an outdoor football stadium in the first place as opposed to the Charlotte Convention Center?  Wouldn't that (the Convention Center) have been a more natural choice given the political nature of this gathering? 

To tell you the truth I didn't think you all would give me such sh**t for it. I looked into the Colesium and the Charlotte Arena isn't finished yet, I didn't look at the Convention Center, I'm sorry it was 1am in the morning.

[MAS117]

Pornography

The Progressive Caucus supports the right of teenagers of 16 years and over to buy and view pornography.

While I do not disagree with this provision, it should add 'adults of 18 years and over' to it.  In addition, we should clarify that we support pornography as long as the pornography in question portrays consenting participants of 18-years or older, and that it doesn't involve children or animals, or necrophilia.  Within these boundaries, we will not interfere with anyone's viewing of pornography.

The revised provision will hereby read: 'The Progressive Caucus supports the right of teenagers of 16 years and over, and adults of 18 years and over, to buy and sell, as well as view pornography as long as it portrays consenting participants of 18 years and over, and that the pornography does not involve necrophilia, children or animals in any way, shape, or form.  Within these set boundaries, we do not support the intervention of the government into the buying and selling, as well as the viewing of pornography.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To the assembled caucus, I propose these changes. 

This doesn't really add anything that shouldn't be understood anyways, and is incredibly verbose. I oppose this change.

As do I.

[MAS117]

The Progessive Caucus Convention is hereby moved to the Charlotte Convention Center

[/size]

[MAS117]

I will begin to start votes in the Voting Booth on the purposed changes in the next couple of days. Stay tuned.

[minionofmidas]

The Progessive Caucus Convention is hereby moved to the Charlotte Convention Center

[/size]

I oppose this move. I say we stay in the stadium. A little rain has never hurt a soccer match, it won't hurt our convention.

[Frodo]

I oppose all changes to the Pornography plank:

The clarifications of things such as child porn, necrophilia, etc. are easily understood as being there as Lewis says. In fact, by creating a list of exceptions, we actually cause ourselves more problems because if we miss something out, then we have actually endorsed it as legitimate, as opposed to using the "read between the lines" understanding.

You make a valid point, but I have to disagree -I do not believe that it is patently obvious that this caucus condemns that which I have already enumerated in my proposal.  We must draw the line and state clearly so as to avoid any possible misunderstanding that there are certain lines that simply should not be crossed.  In fact, by not even mentioning such abominations like child pornography, bestiality, and necrophilia, we give the impression that we tacitly endorse them.   

And I think I have covered everything (child porn, necrophilia, bestiality) that we shouldn't endorse -are there any examples that you can point out of what I have mistakenly left out?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The age of sexual consent and the age for viewing porn are two separate issues -it requires more emotional maturity to have sex than it does simply to view porn.  This should be intuitive.  Therefore the age-limits that I have set should remain as is. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And thus you feed into the public perceptions that all liberals are secularists who want to take God out of public life.  If you want to make the uttering of the words 'Under God' in the pledge of allegiance optional, go ahead.  There is no reason to take it out entirely, especially since it has nothing to do with the 'establishment of religion'. 

I will compromise by offering an altered plank that reads:

The Pledge of Allegiance

The Progressive Caucus feels that any citizen being required to invoke the existence of a God in order to pledge allegiance to the nation discriminates against those who do not believe in God. We therefore support making the uttering of the words 'Under God' optional in the Pledge.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll let Ebowed handle this.........

[Emsworth]

I will compromise by offering an altered plank that reads:

The Pledge of Allegiance

The Progressive Caucus feels that any citizen being required to invoke the existence of a God in order to pledge allegiance to the nation discriminates against those who do not believe in God. We therefore support making the uttering of the words 'Under God' optional in the Pledge.

I feel constrained to object. If "under God" is included in the official version of the pledge, even if the words are optional, the state is implying the existence of a single, unified deity. It is placing its imprimatur on monotheism. This proposal does not involve a polytheistic equivalent; nor does it make provision for atheists. Under the plan, it is optional to say "under God," but one cannot say "under gods" or "under no God."

Clearly, the government's proper stance is one of absolute neutrality. Failing to mention God is not hostility to religion, and secularism is not support for atheism.

[Frodo]

I will compromise by offering an altered plank that reads:

The Pledge of Allegiance

The Progressive Caucus feels that any citizen being required to invoke the existence of a God in order to pledge allegiance to the nation discriminates against those who do not believe in God. We therefore support making the uttering of the words 'Under God' optional in the Pledge.

I feel constrained to object. If "under God" is included in the official version of the pledge, even if the words are optional, the state is implying the existence of a single, unified deity. It is placing its imprimatur on monotheism. This proposal does not involve a polytheistic equivalent; nor does it make provision for atheists. Under the plan, it is optional to say "under God," but one cannot say "under gods" or "under no God."

Clearly, the government's proper stance is one of absolute neutrality. Failing to mention God is not hostility to religion, and secularism is not support for atheism.

With regard to monotheism vs. polytheism -in his dialogues, Plato (or Socrates) mentions God and Gods interchangeably, without giving the impression that he actually believes in there being only one God.  I do not see why it should be any more of an issue today than it was then. 

And my proposal does make provision for atheists, in that it makes the saying of the words 'Under God' optional.  That is their central issue -let us not go the extra mile and give the impression that we are discriminating against those of faith by taking out all religious references from public life when it is entirely unnecessary and needlessly provocative to those of faith who want to have their government at the very least acknowledge the existence of God.  This is a two-way street -you atheists have to compromise as well.     

[Emsworth]

And my proposal does make provision for atheists, in that it makes the saying of the words 'Under God' optional.

The treatment of theists and atheists is not, as I said before, equal under this plan. A theist has the option of saying "under God." An atheist does not have the option of saying "under no God."

Also, as I noted earlier, separating religion and the government is not tantamount to discriminating against religious individuals. Neutrality should be the government's stance: not support, not hostility.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unjustified to conclude that I am an atheist simply because I argue for the separation of Church and State.

[Peter]

Secondary to that is the change in the age viewing requirement: I have always found it ridiculous that we set the age of consent for sexual relations and for viewing pornography at different ages. It does not make intuitive sense - If you can have sex legally, then what exactly are we protecting 16 year olds from by stopping them viewing porn?  If we are to raise the age required to view pornography then I strongly urge that we be intellectually consistent and make the same demand on the age of consent.

The age of sexual consent and the age for viewing porn are two separate issues -it requires more emotional maturity to have sex than it does simply to view porn.  This should be intuitive.

Thats an argument for the age of consent for pornography being lower than the age of consent for sex - you are actually contradicting your own argument with your proposal. The vast majority of 16 year olds are emotionally capable of dealing with pornography, certainly more than they are capable of dealing with sex - I see no reason to prohibit them of the former but not the later.

[Frodo]

And my proposal does make provision for atheists, in that it makes the saying of the words 'Under God' optional.

The treatment of theists and atheists is not, as I said before, equal under this plan. A theist has the option of saying "under God." An atheist does not have the option of saying "under no God."

You have to understand that we live in a nation that is the most devoutly religious in the developed world.  The majority have at least the right to ask that God be acknowledged in public life, and to have that desire honored since we live by democratic norms whereby the majority (or least the plurality, where the case may be) rules.  There is a thin line between obeying the will of the majority, and protecting the rights of the minority -by demanding that all religious references be taken out of the pledge of allegiance (and by extension public life), thereby imposing the will of the minority on the majority, goes against all democratic norms in this republic.  The compromise that I have offered is just that, a compromise, obeying the views of the majority of the citizens in this republic who want God acknowledged in public life, while protecting the rights of the minority who do not want to be required to acknowledge the existence of a God that they do not believe in. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Acknowledging the existence of God in public life is not tantamount to establishing a state church, and therefore should not be compared to discriminating against non-religious individuals.  Thus, it maintains the delicate balance of obeying the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority.  I do not see why the views of a tiny minority must be imposed on the majority when we live in a republic that, as I said before, lives according to democratic norms.   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is unjustified to conclude that I am an atheist simply because I argue for the separation of Church and State.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I apologize, but my point remains -if you want to live in a republic where most of the population is devoutly religious, you are going to have to accomodate them. 

[Emsworth]

And my proposal does make provision for atheists, in that it makes the saying of the words 'Under God' optional.

The treatment of theists and atheists is not, as I said before, equal under this plan. A theist has the option of saying "under God." An atheist does not have the option of saying "under no God."

You have to understand that we live in a nation that is the most devoutly religious in the developed world.  The majority have at least the right to ask that God be acknowledged in public life, and to have that desire honored since we live by democratic norms whereby the majority (or least the plurality, where the case may be) rules.

Every person is perfectly free to acknowledge God, gods, etc., if he or she so pleases. But there is no need for the government to acknowledge any divine being.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a non sequitur. Removing "under God" from the pledge does not equal removing religion from public life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the majority has the right to acknowledge God, but not the right to have a government that officially acknowledges God. There is a distinction between "public life" and the government - religion can and should be involved in the former, but should remain separate from the latter.

[Frodo]

And my proposal does make provision for atheists, in that it makes the saying of the words 'Under God' optional.

The treatment of theists and atheists is not, as I said before, equal under this plan. A theist has the option of saying "under God." An atheist does not have the option of saying "under no God."

You have to understand that we live in a nation that is the most devoutly religious in the developed world.  The majority have at least the right to ask that God be acknowledged in public life, and to have that desire honored since we live by democratic norms whereby the majority (or least the plurality, where the case may be) rules.

Every person is perfectly free to acknowledge God, gods, etc., if he or she so pleases. But there is no need for the government to acknowledge any divine being.

The government, as I understand it, is representative of the majority (or plurality) of the people who send it to power every certain number of years.  And since the vast majority of the people in this republic are devoutly religious -as I have stated before-, isn't it only natural that the government acknowledge the existence of God in accordance with the desires of the majority that it purports to represent?   

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a non sequitur. Removing "under God" from the pledge does not equal removing religion from public life.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have stated numerous times in this thread that government should be absolutely neutral with regard to religious references -does this not also mean that you support removing religion from public life in order to ensure that government be as neutral as humanly possible?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the majority has the right to acknowledge God, but not the right to have a government that officially acknowledges God. There is a distinction between "public life" and the government - religion can and should be involved in the former, but should remain separate from the latter.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have already stated that government is the representative of the will of the majority who send it to power every certain number of years.  You therefore cannot separate government from that majority in 'public life' as if it were some distant entity completely divorced from the latter. 

[Emsworth]

You have stated numerous times in this thread that government should be absolutely neutral with regard to religious references -does this not also mean that you support removing religion from public life in order to ensure that government be as neutral as humanly possible?

I have never said that religion must be removed from "public life." If people want to be religious in public, then they have every right to do so. I am not in favor of the French form of separation, in which public displays of religious inclination are forbidden.

On the contrary, I have said that the government must not meddle in religious matters. It must not express a preference, either in favor or against religion. I have never suggested that the government must be hostile to religion.

[Frodo]

Secondary to that is the change in the age viewing requirement: I have always found it ridiculous that we set the age of consent for sexual relations and for viewing pornography at different ages. It does not make intuitive sense - If you can have sex legally, then what exactly are we protecting 16 year olds from by stopping them viewing porn?  If we are to raise the age required to view pornography then I strongly urge that we be intellectually consistent and make the same demand on the age of consent.

The age of sexual consent and the age for viewing porn are two separate issues -it requires more emotional maturity to have sex than it does simply to view porn.  This should be intuitive.

Thats an argument for the age of consent for pornography being lower than the age of consent for sex - you are actually contradicting your own argument with your proposal. The vast majority of 16 year olds are emotionally capable of dealing with pornography, certainly more than they are capable of dealing with sex - I see no reason to prohibit them of the former but not the later.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how I am contradicting my own argument.  Could you elaborate as to how I am doing so?

[Peter]

I am sorry, but I fail to see how I am contradicting my own argument.  Could you elaborate as to how I am doing so?

You state that "it requires more emotional maturity to have sex than it does simply to view porn" - if we use a reasonable assumption that emotional maturity is proportional to age, then we must conclude that it requires more age to have sex than to view porn. Thus the logical conclusion of your argument must be to raise the age of consent for sex, instead of for porn, yet you propose the exact opposite of this.

[Frodo]

I am sorry, but I fail to see how I am contradicting my own argument.  Could you elaborate as to how I am doing so?

You state that "it requires more emotional maturity to have sex than it does simply to view porn" - if we use a reasonable assumption that emotional maturity is proportional to age, then we must conclude that it requires more age to have sex than to view porn. Thus the logical conclusion of your argument must be to raise the age of consent for sex, instead of for porn, yet you propose the exact opposite of this.

Looking over the relevant sections of my proposal, I still don't see the contradiction you say I am making:

'The Progressive Caucus supports the right of teenagers of 16 years and over, and adults of 18 years and over, to buy and sell, as well as view pornography as long as it portrays consenting participants of 18 years and over, and that the pornography does not involve necrophilia, children or animals in any way, shape, or form.  Within these set boundaries, we do not support the intervention of the government into the buying and selling, as well as the viewing of pornography.'

Simply put, I am adding adults to the list because not everyone over the age of 16 can be defined as 'teenagers'.  Is that the reason for your confusion?

[Peter]

I apologise, I misread your proposal.

I continue to agree with Lewis that this proposal is unnecessarily verbose. Much easier language is not something that tries to exclude things as yours does, but simply creates an inclusive relationship, thus we cannot "miss something out". There is also a strong argument that only licensed vendors should be able to sell porn - I oppose giving this right to everybody. I propose:

'The Progressive Caucus supports the right of persons of 16 years and over to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only consenting persons of at least 18 years of age.'

For obvious reasons this leaves us only endorsing one form of pornography, rather than anti-endorsing others, whilst potetntially leaving the door ajar on others.

[Frodo]

I continue to agree with Lewis that this proposal is unnecessarily verbose. Much easier language is not something that tries to exclude things as yours does, but simply creates an inclusive relationship, thus we cannot "miss something out". There is also a strong argument that only licensed vendors should be able to sell porn - I oppose giving this right to everybody. I propose:

'The Progressive Caucus supports the right of persons of 16 years and over to buy, possess and view pornography depicting only consenting persons of at least 18 years of age.'

For obvious reasons this leaves us only endorsing one form of pornography, rather than anti-endorsing others, whilst potetntially leaving the door ajar on others.

I can live with this.

[Frodo]

Given the socially liberal focus of this caucus, I propose adding a plank on prostitution -with much of the language borrowed from one of my earlier posts:

Prostitution

The Progressive Caucus supports the legalization of prostitution.  This involves mandating that prostitutes should be at least 18 years of age, kept together in bordellos and off the streets, and are frequently checked by local authorities for HIV-AIDS, and other sexually transmitted diseases.

We believe it makes better sense to have these business transactions conducted in a far safer and cleaner environment than on the streets where they are liable to be exposed to the elements, as well as raped and/or murdered by street thugs. 

[Ebowed]

The death penalty is a fault line through the caucus, and the present compromise was made to stop this from truly dividing the Caucus - I cannot vote for splitting the Caucus into two.

The current plank says that the practice of executing juveniles is "regressive."  Well guess what, the practice of executing anyone is regressive.  I don't see why we should make exceptions just because we're afraid to alienate people.  If I'm going to be tough on one issue, the death penalty will be it.

Re: the prostitution plank, I hate to say this, but I'm not sure I see the point in legalizing it if the government has to regulate it.  I say this not because I personally oppose legalizing prostitution in the first place, but because that defies the whole point of such a libertarian position.  While checking for prostitutes for HIV/AIDS makes good sense, it would require too much work from the government, which equates to extra taxpayer money, when we should spend it on more important things.

[Frodo]

Re: the prostitution plank, I hate to say this, but I'm not sure I see the point in legalizing it if the government has to regulate it.  I say this not because I personally oppose legalizing prostitution in the first place, but because that defies the whole point of such a libertarian position.  While checking for prostitutes for HIV/AIDS makes good sense, it would require too much work from the government, which equates to extra taxpayer money, when we should spend it on more important things.

Let me put it this way -legalizing prostitution is a matter of public health.  By putting prostitutes under the aegis of the federal govenment (in fact, it doesn't even have to be the federal government per se but a partnership between it, and state and local governments), we can manage to at least have some measure of control over prostitution, being able to have at least the power to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.  We would know where the prostitutes are, and where they conduct their business transactions, and this would place us in a much more advantageous position with regard to infectious diseases that often come with prostitution. 

Much of the African sub-continent is being decimated by HIV-AIDS in proportions only last seen with the Black Death in Europe, and it looks as if India is about to experience the same.  And much of the spread of HIV-AIDS originated with prostitutes having unprotected sex with their clients.  By exerting at least some measure of governmental  (and it doesn't particularly matter at what level) control over prostitution, we could ensure that we could protect the public health if we have prostitutes gathered together at once central location so as to make it easier for the government to control them.     

[Ebowed]

This is true, but I'd rather have it not legal in the first place.  That way prostitutes who are possibly helping to spread STD's are criminals for their acts, and the government does not sanction prostitution with its legalization and/or regulation of it.

[Frodo]

This is true, but I'd rather have it not legal in the first place.  That way prostitutes who are possibly helping to spread STD's are criminals for their acts, and the government does not sanction prostitution with its legalization and/or regulation of it.

Yes, that is the attitude of many African governments in areas afflicted with HIV-AIDS that has devastated their countries.  See how far that has gotten them. 

Prostitutes are not criminals -they are victims of circumstance.  And I view them as such.  Most do not even know that they have HIV-AIDS, and may not have access to condoms.  It is not like they are deliberately spreading the disease. 

[Ebowed]

I have nothing against distributing condoms.  I'm just saying it's not a good idea to legalize prostitution.  I think if we can focus on ending the war on drugs, the prisons will have more rooms for serious things like prostitution.  And of course, the best way to combat prostitution is by getting to the root of the problem, poverty.  Legalizing prostitution only delays the problem.