Two Questions for Republicans/Conservatives

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by it5five, Oct 27, 2007.

  1. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #1
    1. If you could go back in time and abort Osama Bin Laden, would you?

    2. If there was a terrorist threat in the United States, and the only way you could stop it is if you had sex with a man, would you do it?

    I was watching Bill Maher tonight, and the conservative guest has these questions posted on his blog. It's a question about priorities. I'm just curious as to how the conservatives will answer these.
     
  2. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #2
    don't forget ann coulter (presumably str8) and LC republicans.
     
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    How would you answer them it5five?

    For me it would be 1. Yes 2. No.
     
  4. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #4
    Regarding the second, I'm not sure what sex can accomplish that good old fashioned violence can't. Regarding both, simplifying the push of Islamic terrorists onto American soil (as compared with various groups that we already had) or the actions required to stunt a terrorist attack to the actions of one individual is presumptuous.

    Since the second seems absurd in cause/effect, I'm going to ignore it.

    The first, I will answer "No". To abide yourself to the belief that hunting down Bin Ladin would or will make any difference is silly. If I haven't expressed that clearly enough in the past, I apologize. It would have made a strong statement if he had been could in the short-term following the events of September 11, 2001, but wouldn't have changed much, if anything. If he had never been born, someone else would surely have risen in influence to guide the work that is being done today. Would there be some differences? Probably. But the underlying problems would be the same.

    Forcing your culture and beliefs, be that politics like a republican form of government or values like women's rights, on others never goes over easily. Trying to install American democracy is doomed to fail, trying to install Western values is doomed to fail. Letting democracy happen on its own is the only chance it could succeed, letting people adopt values on their own is the only chance it could succeed.
     
  5. juxtaposer macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2007
    Location:
    In A Field
    #6
    Never a truer word spoken.
    In answer to the questions, I would have to say:-
    1) No, abortion would not have solved the problem. Western civilizations seem to be in the mess that we are in due to poor foreign policy. Perhaps if I could go back in time and stop us from interfering in the Middle-East altogether, I think I would do that. Still haven't got a time machine though. Well, not one that does anything but help me retrieve my lost files anyway.
    2) Yes. I would have sex against my own sexual orientation if it would stop a terrorist threat. This situation is unlikely to occur, and I think the OP intended this to be the choice of two extremes.
    :)
     
  6. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #7
    Seems to me like frivolous questions, and if meant seriously they indicate a serious lack of understanding of the many causes of mideastern unrest.

    Terrorism has been a mid-east tool since long before bin Laden. He happened to have both motivation and money to set up his actions agains us, but if not him there are many others. Our foreign policy which led to his efforts derived from Gulf War I, in meeting the Saudi wishes for our military protection. bin Laden was pleased tohave our assistance against the USSR in Afghanistan, but then decided our very presence in Saudi Arabia was a profanation of holy ground.

    We could pull every bit of our military out of the mideast and the Jihadists would still hate our non-compliance with their version of Sharia. Whatever lablel suits should be used, I guess, but essentially it's a war between the Jihadists and western civilization. To speak of "negotiation" or "accommodation" is merely a form of Danegeld.

    'Rat
     
  7. iSaint macrumors 603

    iSaint

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    #8
    I don't know...if I were bin Ladan's bitch, I'd be rich as hell. Anything for whirled peas. :eek: :p
     
  8. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
    #9
    Stupid questions...

    1. God put Osama on this earth for a reason. No.
    2. Women have sex with men all the time, and what does that have to do with the existence of Terrorism? Remember, Muslim Terrorists hate Homosexuals too...
     
  9. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    If you read the original post, it says this is a question of priorities.

    :rolleyes:
     
  10. Virgil-TB2 macrumors 65816

    Virgil-TB2

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    #11
    I know this thread is just in fun but these questions are stupid, horrible, juvenile etc.

    In fact, speaking of Anne Coulter ... if she was a left-wing instead of a right-wing person, these are the exactly the kind of deep meaningful questions she would come up with.

    They are full of false dichotomy's, prurient interests, and outrageous situations guaranteed to do nothing but inflame popular opinion and cause a big argument that goes essentially nowhere.

    How stupid.
     
  11. it5five thread starter macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    Right.

    These aren't serious academic questions. I was just curious as to what the priorities of the conservatives/Republicans here are.

    The guy whom I got these questions from is a conservative.
     
  12. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #13
    Do you really think Democrats/Liberals would answer these stupid questions differently?

    I'm trying to think of a way to insult dems/libs/cons/neocons/repubs/gays/straights more than this thread does, but I really can't.


    Tell you what. When the the situation in question #2 presents itself or when they build a time machine, I'll let you know.
     
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Sounds like someone's ripping off South Park here -- at least with the gay-sex-stopping-something-bad-from-happening thing.
     
  14. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #15
    I think you're also missing the point. This is about priorities, or the lack thereof. The author is, himself, a conservative who thinks the GOP has lost their way, focusing on things or approaches that take away from the real problems and threats.

    I'm not going to say the Dems don't do that as well, but right now they're not doing much of anything, and haven't really mastered the distraction politics the way the GOP under Rove has.
     
  15. imac/cheese macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    #16
    No and No.

    The ends do not justify the means.

    I feel that taking the life of an unborn child is wrong no matter what that child might grow up to be. Every child should have the opportunity of life.

    I would not have sex with anyone other than my wife to accomplish anything. Once again, the ends do not justify the means. I feel that sacrificing one's own morals and beliefs to accomplish something is wrong no matter how good the accomplishment might seem.

    These are pretty crazy questions that would obviously never happen, but I think these type of questions are good to stir up debate and offer insight. I don't know why other people are offended that you are asking hypotheticals. I hope my answers have provided you the insight you were looking for.
     
  16. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #17
    I'm not missing anything.

    Priorities huh? Would you..hmm, condone torture of an individual of it meant saving 1000s of lives?
     
  17. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #18
    This whole thing is silly because these are hypothetical situations that are presented as being absolute, when the resulting impact is anything but. It's easy to say "I would torture one person to prevent 1,000 deaths", but there's no situation where torturing one person would be guaranteed to have a measurable preventative effect. Aborting Bin Laden would not necessarily prevent 9/11.

    The only hypothetical time machine situation that's totally valid is the question of going back in time and killing Hitler. Everyone knows that if Hitler was killed before WWII, Chuck Norris would be President.
     
  18. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #19
    Or would you force a woman who wanted an abortion to carry her baby to term if you knew that her child would develop the cure (or vaccine) for AIDS (or cancer or...)?
     
  19. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #20
    Most plausible theories for time travel (at least according to Stephen Hawking) revolve around a wormhole device that would only be able to traverse time to any point in which the machine already exists, so you'd never be able to go back to a time before time travel was realized. This would also explain (perhaps conveniently) why there are no time travel tourists in our time from the future.

    What if he used the cure to do evil?
     
  20. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #21
    Well, ok, by asking this you still are missing the point. It isn't about the silly hypotheticals. He (again, being conservative himself) is trying to point out that there are real threats like terrorism to deal with, and things like stopping gay marriage aren't important, especially compared to that.
     
  21. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #22
    I agree that terrorism is a bigger issue than gay marriage, but to presume that a competant person can't deal with more than one issue at the same time is silly. Or, are you saying that we should stop discussing gay marriage, put it on the back burner, and just focus on the Policing of Terror? After all, it's not that gay marriage is being stopped, it's that it is being started. "Stopped" is the status quo and therefore would require less effort on the part of any legislature.

    As an aside, it bothers me that the guest, and you so willingly go along with this, has decided to infer that gay marriage is simply two dudes sleeping with each other. If the left is willing to bite on that equation, then either "gay marriage is about rights for those making a commitment like straight folks" is a sham or the left is more easily manipulated than I think even Karl Rove thought. I mean, how else can we go from "would you sleep with a guy to stop a terrorist attack" to gay marriage?
     
  22. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #23
    As much as I can appreciate this comment is it even that deep? Its more like the question is case of the druthers and "which would you rather do" than a serious social commentary.
     
  23. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #24
    I agree with you, but that would require the speaker/listener/reader to realize the idiocy of the questions presented. But, it seems like conservative guest, Mahr, and friends want this to be serious political commentary.
     
  24. it5five thread starter macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #25
    Holy mother of god.

    nbs2: These aren't serious questions. They aren't deep questions. They weren't intended to be deep or serious when they were talked about on Maher's show. In fact, when Maher brought them up, he laughed once during asking, and then said one thing after the abortion one, "That'd make Romney's head spin", then the discussion about them ended.

    They weren't intended to be deep or serious when I reposted them here.

    The questions in no way reveal anything "secret" about how the left/right/center feel about gay marriage. But if it really bothers you the way the second one is written, here you go.

    2. If there was an imminent terrorist attack, and the only way you could stop it was by allowing gay couples to marry, would you support allowing them to marry?

    So there you go.
     

Share This Page