Question for the 'Muricans

[Vampyr]

Originally Posted by Professor S

The simple answer is "move", even though I understand it's not that simple for everyone. But hell, if destitute Mexicans can find a way to illegally travel thousands of miles across national and state borders for the chance at a better life, I think we're a little lazy to think an American is trapped in a state.

For things like health care, states can serve as laboratories for ideas. For example: One aspect of Romneycare that many people ignore, or simply got understand, is that not all plans fit all states/communities. Romneycare was built for Mass. If you were to build something for Florida, it would likely be very different. It also allows these governments to compare notes, learn from mistakes, and because the size of the program is much smaller making positive change is much easier. After all, we've seen what happens when anyone tries to fix social security: political death sentence. reduce the stakes and people will take more intelligent risks.

And of course I think real human rights issues like gender and race should be handled on a national level. I'm referring to many social programs such as welfare, unemployment, healthcare, and also many social issues, such as gay marriage, that are more a reflection of that state's specific culture or economic makeup. I'm for gay marriage, but I also don't think it is pragmatic to force it on a community. Let them decide, and as we've seen the force of the nation, not the government, can move mountains and people are more tolerant because they were given a voice. It takes more time, but the end results are far better. Forcing people to do something, like Roe v. Wade, leads to 40 years of contention and even murder.

Uh oh... we just got all serious in a joke thread...

I agree that if you live in a place that tends to go against all your ideas you should move, but that still sets the person back even further economically, just because of where they were born.

But I'm not just talking about adults stuck in a situation that they don't like. I mean how many people grow up into a tragic lifestyle because they were born in a state that willing fosters and encourages intolerance and ignorance? Teenage pregnancy, hate crimes, drugs, etc. A lot of people don't even have the chance to get out before they are consumed and become just another cog moving the wheel forward.

And I think we would be worse off than we are without Roe v. Wade. I think there would be more deaths due to illegal abortions than there are deaths from people rallying against abortion. I mean, no one is pro abortion. Everyone wants there to be less or zero abortions, and evidence from around the world shows that places where abortion is legal and sex education is more available, there are actually less abortions.

Same with gay marriage. In my mind it's a human issue alongside gender and race and a state shouldn't be able to up and discriminate against those people under the guise of culture and heritage. That rings a little too close to the KKK slogans for me.

But these are two very different schools of thought and an argument that has been going on since the birth of the nation. I'm the Hamilton to your Jefferson.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

I agree that if you live in a place that tends to go against all your ideas you should move, but that still sets the person back even further economically, just because of where they were born.

But I'm not just talking about adults stuck in a situation that they don't like. I mean how many people grow up into a tragic lifestyle because they were born in a state that willing fosters and encourages intolerance and ignorance? Teenage pregnancy, hate crimes, drugs, etc. A lot of people don't even have the chance to get out before they are consumed and become just another cog moving the wheel forward.

While I appreciate the good intentions of having national government handle the issues you mention, I'm not sure what any national or state government could do about much anything you mentioned. Culture supersedes laws, and in most states that have poor records on those issues they already have laws on the books that haven't done much.

And I think we would be worse off than we are without Roe v. Wade. I think there would be more deaths due to illegal abortions than there are deaths from people rallying against abortion. I mean, no one is pro abortion. Everyone wants there to be less or zero abortions, and evidence from around the world shows that places where abortion is legal and sex education is more available, there are actually less abortions.

That assumes that the status quo of the early 1970's would have maintained. I would argue that most states would have at least early term abortion legal with appropriate protections against late term abortion/infanticide. But then again, we're both speculating. In any case, abortion is a very blurry issue because both the rights of the mother, and at some point the rights of an unborn child (from months 7-9 the only real difference between a viable baby and a fetus is location), need to be considered. Honestly, this is why I tend to favor the state by state approach because it allows 50 states to create solutions as opposed to one country that can't seem to agree on anything...

Same with gay marriage. In my mind it's a human issue alongside gender and race and a state shouldn't be able to up and discriminate against those people under the guise of culture and heritage. That rings a little too close to the KKK slogans for me.

I don't personally disagree, but IMO we have to measure the severity of the violation to rights to the impact it would have on the society, and compare that to momentum. Prohibiting gay marriage doesn't really "hurt" anyone, but telling a state they had to allow gay marriage could lead to reactionary violence in the least tolerant regions. Also, momentum is definitely moving towards gay marriage being legalized on a state by state basis. Given a decade, I would assume half of the states will legalize gay marriage, if not more.

But these are two very different schools of thought and an argument that has been going on since the birth of the nation. I'm the Hamilton to your Jefferson.

Very true.

[KillerGremlin]

I'm always surprised when talking to someone from across the pond that doesn't realize that East to West Coast is like ~3000 miles.

America is a huge fucking country. People don't realize that you can't just hop in your car and go visit your neighboring state. I live in northern Illinois, respectively. I can be in Wisconsin in about an hour and a half. I can also make my way towards Indiana in reasonable time: but the northwest half of Indiana is a ghetto shithole....

My point is: getting down to Missouri (or misery, as I like to call that dump) or Kentucky takes a loooooooooooong ass time. We are talking at least 6 hours from Chicago to St. Louis. It's not just like, "hey I'm going to hop on my bullet train and be in another country in 45 minutes!" It doesn't work like that in the States. An airplane ride from Midwest USA to the East Coast takes about 5 hours. So pick your poison: 5 hours to St. Louis by car, or 5 hours to Florida by plane.

There's also huge regional differences, and huge cultural differences. I cannot discern the accents of folks out in the Carolinas. Seriously, white folks from the Carolinas are blacker than black folks from Chicago. At least in terms of accents.

As for names? Pffft....

United States of Fuck Canada, eh!

Uncle Sam: Coming to Arrest You! (USCAY - nice ring to it)

Redneck England

[Typhoid]

America is a huge fucking country.

Canada's bigger. What's your point.

Is Canada really all that different, or should I ask someone from Quebec what they think about it?

[In all srsness to the joke:] They've had separation votes. They fail every time. Most Quebecers like Canada. I honestly don't remember the last time I even heard anything about Separation.

I'm not sure what any national or state government could do about much anything you mentioned. Culture supersedes laws,

I agree with both of you.
But while I don't think changing a law will immediately change social stigma, I can guarantee nearly 100% that not changing that law won't change shit.
Just (for general example) take gay marriage in the south. I'm pretty sure everyone would agree that "the south" tends to hate gay marriage. That is a social thing. But gay marriage is also illegal, so there is no opportunity for future generations to get acclimated to the idea of gay marriage. At least if you make gay marriage legal, while people will still disagree with it off the bat, future generations might not. Social growth.

[Fox 6]

Also on the Quebec thing. The seperatist party lost the vast majority of their seats last election.

What about the Alaskan seperatist movement huh? Todd Palin was all over that shit.

[Professor S]

My point with Quebec wasn't about separation, it was about how areas of countries have vastly different cultures from province to province or state to state. The larger the country the more pronounced the differences. It's about location and population, not nationality, whether we're talking about Redneck England or Hockeybeeristan.

[Teuthida]

Never considered myself an American. I'm a New Yorker. Upstate might as well be the deep south to me. The only time I've ever been between the coasts was to catch a connecting flight in Dallas, and I was too young to even remember it.

[Combine 017]

Originally Posted by Professor S

My point with Quebec wasn't about separation, it was about how areas of countries have vastly different cultures from province to province or state to state. The larger the country the more pronounced the differences. It's about location and population, not nationality, whether we're talking about Redneck England or Hockeybeeristan.

I think I get what youre saying here and I agree, Quebec sucks.