The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Can you think of political/moral subjects which have more than just two viewpoints, other than just religion? For example:

1. Abortion is Wrong
2. Abortion is ok in some circumstances
3. Abortions should be Legal
4. I eat babies


Surely not everything is broken down into left v right, right?

Almost everything has more than one position. For example, while I never supported the current war (I did support the first Iraq war and Afghanistan) I heard a man of TV a couple weeks ago so opposed to any war that he made the statement that the Untied States should not have any form of military.

What about "Abortion should be the woman's choice but I wouldn't do it"?

I've never seen option #4 available when this debate has popped up, or I likely would have been more politically outspoken.

I heard of this guy!!  He's the first man to ever get a negative score on an IQ test...

Abortion is wrong
Abortion is right
Abortion is ok if Laura Bush gets gang raped and becomes pregnant

^^ hahaha...  so true.  just like cheney and his lesbo daughter.

What about Drug Use?

- Absolutely illegal.
- Absolutely legal.
- Only legal for medical use.

What about Prostitution?

-Legal

-Illegal

-Ok, if you haven't had pussy since pussy had you. ;D

What about every issue ever discussed?

I'm going to steal that last line...I can't say I've ever heard abstinence phrased quite so eloquently.  ;D

OK...  This is kind of going in the wrong direction.  I know that everything is NOT black and white.  This is what I want to uncover. My question isn't about abortion specifically.  That was just used as an example b/c it was the first subject that popped in my head that there are more than two points of view openly discussed about when the subject comes up. 

To clarify, I'll restate my question: What OTHER political based subjects have more than two regularly argued viewpoints in the media, courts, or your own friendly discussions that you can think of?

Below is another I came up with.

Death Penalty:

1. Bad because killing is bad
2. Bad because the process kills potentially innocent people
3. Good because crime in and of itself has to be punished
4. Good because it's a strong deterrent

EDIT:
This post excludes Dave Gray's comment.  He's going in the right direction.

I'm not sure if this really qualifies.  I think that this is one of the few cases where there are really only 2 mainstream viewpoints.

1) Allowing the government to carry out death sentences.
2) Disallowing it.

I mean, you may have people who are against it for: racist reasons, the possibility of killing innocents, cost effectiveness, etc....but they are all against it.  Unless people that share viewpoints for different reasons counts as a third stance.

I'm all class baby! :P

An important thing to remember is whether or not one believes in objective value. In other words, is there a real right and wrong. Is there more to this universe than causality. Usually this view is also the theistic one, but doesn't necessarily have to be. If there is this "objective value" if there is a "right and wrong" then it just comes down to the best thinkers proving things one way or another based off of ethics derived from those values...

If there isn't a right and wrong though, well, then, there's no use even talking about it. It's personal perception and nothing more. That means that most controversies, even the things you and I believe in most deeply and passionately, are meaningless.

So you have a choice, accept that values exist, and then realize that how you live your life and what you believe has some merit and value (and I would say, infinite merit and value) or, suffocate in subjectivity.

The problem with this list is that the vast majority of people who agree with statement #1 also agree with statement #2, so essentially there are only two points of view.

It'll be very interesting to see how South Dakota's case plays out.  At the very extreme it will become a states rights issue.

I'm pro choice. I choose life.

One of my favorite lines from Lewis Blck sums this up nicely.

Right now there is a Republican standing up in congress saying "I have a bad idea", and a Democrat standing behind him saying "I can make it worse."

As long as you have more than one person, you will have more than one view.

WHich is one of the glories of democracy. Monarchies have bad ideas, but that's it. They're bad and nothing can stop them. At least with democrats and republicans we have two parties who cancel each other out, and therefore we have no bad ideas put into law...

I'm sorry...can you repeat that?

WOW!

Did you have crack in your cereal this morning SCFinFan?  Below I have listed just a few of the tremendous amounts of bad ideas that our democracy has put into place in just the past few years.


1. The Bush Administration's regressive environmental policies have lowered cleanliness standards for our air and water while allowing utility companies (many of whom are Bush campaign contributors) to profit off of the weakened regulations. In 2002, the head of the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement resigned, complaining that the agency was "fighting a White House that seems determined to weaken the rules we are trying to enforce." (CNN, Aug. 22, 2002)
<a href="http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/2004.asp[/url]


2. Bush is underfunding education. The President cut $200 million from his own No Child Left Behind Act, eliminating crucial educational programs for lower income children and cutting professional training for more than 20,000 teachers. Flawed from its very foundation, No Child Left Behind is based on then-Governor Bush's late 90's "Texas Miracle," program of standardized testing designed to increase performance and reduce dropout rates--now recognized as a scandalous failure.


3. The Bush Administration's Patriot Act threatens our constitutional rights and civil liberties. Passed by a post 9/11 Congress, the Patriot act expands the ability of law enforcement to conduct secret searches, and engage various forms of surveillance, including internet monitoring and wiretapping. It gives the FBI access to American citizens' highly personal medical, financial, mental health, and student records without notification or permission, and allows them to investigate individuals without probable cause of a crime. Finally, it permits non-citizens to be jailed based on mere suspicion and held indefinitely in six month increments without meaningful judicial review.
<a href="http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207" target="_blank">http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&amp;c=207[/url]


4. Bush's Tax Cuts only benefit the rich. Bush claimed that his tax cut would "reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." He failed to mention that this "relief" program would put half of the tax cut's dividends into the hands of our nation's wealthiest 5%, while 8.1 million citizens in the bottom half of the income bracket receive approximately $300 a year. Reducing tax revenues while doubling the growth rate of federal spending has caused the federal budget deficit to balloon to a projected $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

You mean at least we have checks and balances?  Between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.  In additions, having a bi-partisan system introduces another check and balance.  But by no means does this ensure no bad ideas get passed into law.