By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony donated $50,000 :)

Chrkeller said:

Right, but you are missing the point.  Red states via having over 50% of the population being female can have the senate being blue....  

That doesn't mean minority rule doesn't apply.

If 40% of women in red states are pro-choice, and 95% of women in blue states are pro-choice, the overall number can favor pro-choice and the senate could show the opposite.

Not every woman or man has the same opinion on it.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

Right, but you are missing the point.  Red states via having over 50% of the population being female can have the senate being blue....  

That doesn't mean minority rule doesn't apply.

If 40% of women in red states are pro-choice, and 95% of women in blue states are pro-choice, the overall number can favor pro-choice and the senate could show the opposite.

Not every woman or man has the same opinion on it.

True, but that is a good thing.  We have a balanced system.  The house is based on population, so large states get more representation, while the senate is 2 per state, giving small states equal representation.  The system works.  Creating a system where 5 states decide all policy is a bad move.

As for not every person has the same opinion...  exactly the point.  Our rules reflect the desire of the people, even when some of us don't like it.    



Chrkeller said:

True, but that is a good thing.  We have a balanced system.  The house is based on population, so large states get more representation, while the senate is 2 per state, giving small states equal representation.  The system works.  Creating a system where 5 states decide all policy is a bad move.

As for not every person has the same opinion...  exactly the point.  Our rules reflect the desire of the people, even when some of us don't like it.    

Does the system work? Is it actually beneficial that smaller states get the same representation as bigger states? This is something that you're taking for granted as being obviously true, when it is neither obvious or necessarily true.

A majority of people can make a bad decision, and a minority of people can make a bad decision. Just because you happen to agree with something, doesn't make it a good decision, and it doesn't mean the system is working.

States don't make decisions, people/individuals in those states do. 

 No one is talking about creating a system where 5 states decide all policy, they're talking about a system where the individuals decide. Arbitrarily deciding that some people's votes shouldn't be worth as much just because they happen to live in a similar place is just arbitrary, it's not fairness.



the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

True, but that is a good thing.  We have a balanced system.  The house is based on population, so large states get more representation, while the senate is 2 per state, giving small states equal representation.  The system works.  Creating a system where 5 states decide all policy is a bad move.

As for not every person has the same opinion...  exactly the point.  Our rules reflect the desire of the people, even when some of us don't like it.    

Does the system work? Is it actually beneficial that smaller states get the same representation as bigger states? This is something that you're taking for granted as being obviously true, when it is neither obvious or necessarily true.

A majority of people can make a bad decision, and a minority of people can make a bad decision. Just because you happen to agree with something, doesn't make it a good decision, and it doesn't mean the system is working.

States don't make decisions, people/individuals in those states do. 

 No one is talking about creating a system where 5 states decide all policy, they're talking about a system where the individuals decide. Arbitrarily deciding that some people's votes shouldn't be worth as much just because they happen to live in a similar place is just arbitrary, it's not fairness.

Large states get more representatives and get more electoral votes.  It just the senate that is 2 per state.  And yes, I think it is a fair system.  And honestly the popular vote for president is nonsense.  If we moved to popular vote, candidates would change their strategy and voters would like change their behaviour.  I think people make the assumption that if we change our system nothing else would change with it. 

Personally I don't agree with the SCOTUS ruling, but we live in a community, I accept not always getting what I want.  And yes, I think the system works, despite being flawed at times.    

And let us be honest...  blue states want protection for abortion...  which will be granted by state law...  red states do not want abortion protection, and their state laws will reflect as such.  So what is the problem?  Each state gets what they want.  

The SCOTUS ruling isn't banning abortion, it is allowing each state to decide.  



Chrkeller said:

Large states get more representatives and get more electoral votes.  It just the senate that is 2 per state.  And yes, I think it is a fair system.  And honestly the popular vote for president is nonsense.  If we moved to popular vote, candidates would change their strategy and voters would like change their behaviour.  I think people make the assumption that if we change our system nothing else would change with it. 

No I think it could change things, and I think it would be for the better.

Oh no, presidents might have to work to appeal to more people, what a great shame that would be.

Chrkeller said:

And let us be honest...  blue states want protection for abortion...  which will be granted by state law...  red states do not want abortion protection, and their state laws will reflect as such.  So what is the problem?  Each state gets what they want.  

Because states aren't people.They can't get what they want. You're heavily assuming that states are homogenous, which they aren't. You're letting the 60% that are pro-life make the choice for the 40% that aren't in those particular states.

In the case of some states, like my own, where the state is heavily gerrymandered, despite the fact that like 55% of the state tends to vote blue, Republicans control the state government here. So we're not even going to get what we want here.

More importantly here, getting what someone wants, isn't necessarily good for them. People have perspectives on what abortion is, what it's like, why women get them done that isn't strictly accurate. In short people can be subject to propaganda, and get their lives ruined despite thinking that's what they want.



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:
Chrkeller said:

Large states get more representatives and get more electoral votes.  It just the senate that is 2 per state.  And yes, I think it is a fair system.  And honestly the popular vote for president is nonsense.  If we moved to popular vote, candidates would change their strategy and voters would like change their behaviour.  I think people make the assumption that if we change our system nothing else would change with it. 

No I think it could change things, and I think it would be for the better.

Oh no, presidents might have to work to appeal to more people, what a great shame that would be.

Chrkeller said:

And let us be honest...  blue states want protection for abortion...  which will be granted by state law...  red states do not want abortion protection, and their state laws will reflect as such.  So what is the problem?  Each state gets what they want.  

Because states aren't people.They can't get what they want. You're heavily assuming that states are homogenous, which they aren't. You're letting the 60% that are pro-life make the choice for the 40% that aren't in those particular states.

In the case of some states, like my own, where the state is heavily gerrymandered, despite the fact that like 55% of the state tends to vote blue, Republicans control the state government here. So we're not even going to get what we want here.

More importantly here, getting what someone wants, isn't necessarily good for them. People have perspectives on what abortion is, what it's like, why women get them done that isn't strictly accurate. In short people can be subject to propaganda, and get their lives ruined despite thinking that's what they want.

Fair enough, bear in mind that cuts both ways...  liberal presidents would need to to appeal to places like Texas.

I can't help if people vote against their own interest.  I believe in the right to vote, such is life on the results.  I don't have the right to override a person's vote, regardless if I agree with it or not.   

And luckily we live in a country with 50 states, we get to pick.  I've lived in 3 states.  And frankly there are a good 10 states I would never live in.  Don't like your state, move.  I did, more than once.



SegaHeart said:
Mnementh said:

This right there is what a company need to do: support their employees.

If only Sony was Created in American soil they understand what it means to be American and say the right things in USA politics. But yes, Sony is not well versed in American politics I understand the world doesn't revolve around USA.Japan has their line of thinking, Ukraine has their line of thinking,"China has their line of thinking like 1 child per parent and eating human babies if theirs a second child also eat and rob pets from USA and bring them in China to butcher and eat :("

@SegaHeart, Can you please explain what you mean by this bolded part of your statement?



OneTime said:
Ryuu96 said:

Because it affects their employees...

Do some of you think corporations are ran by robots or something? Lol.

I'm going to put it extremely cynically but this is it, forcing your employees to have a child that they don't want which takes roughly 9 months to birth and then taking on the huge responsibilities afterwards is shockingly, not a good thing for work ethic/morale.

That's me being cynically as shit about why corporations support it, I'm sure some do actually care about their employees but I'm also sure that many support it only because it affects their bottom line, either way, it's something that affects them so why should they stay silent?

Presumably in the USA, half of their employees will be pro-choice and half go to church.  Which half of their employees should they care about?

Church needs to minds it owns business.

At the end of the day, the owner of the body gets to decide what happens to their body. Otherwise they are not free individuals.

If you are religious, that's your personal choice. But you don't get to force religious doctrine on others, that isn't freedom, that isn't choice.

Last edited by Pemalite - on 18 May 2022

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

super_etecoon said:
SegaHeart said:

If only Sony was Created in American soil they understand what it means to be American and say the right things in USA politics. But yes, Sony is not well versed in American politics I understand the world doesn't revolve around USA.Japan has their line of thinking, Ukraine has their line of thinking,"China has their line of thinking like 1 child per parent and eating human babies if theirs a second child also eat and rob pets from USA and bring them in China to butcher and eat :("

@SegaHeart, Can you please explain what you mean by this bolded part of your statement?

https://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=7333

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSo292PnKs



Cute and honest Sega Saturn fan, also noone should buy Sega grrrr, Sega for life.

Chrkeller said:
ConservagameR said:

I'm not going to make a really big deal of it because I'm clearly more neutral than Sony says they are, but just for this, I'm going to wait on a few new releases until they go on sale before I buy.
Not because I'm against the fact that Sony is blatantly saying they're pro abortion with this move, because they can believe and do what they like, but because they just came out and said, we're neutral, we swear, then immediately got caught showing where they truly stand.
Believe what you want, but don't lie about it. What happened to the good old days of corporations focusing solely on their own products and competition?

In the US it appears to be a generational thing.  For starters the younger generation needs everything they believe externally validated, I blame social media.  And secondly they want easy solutions.  Instead of people fixing the problem we want corporations to make it easy and fix it for 'us.'  Add in people being unable to accept when they don't get their hearts desire....  kind of a cluster.  I simply wasn't raised that way, thankfully.

I actually think this is because Americans hate government taking actions to fix social issues. In countries where people are used to see government taking social responsibility (which of course demands higher taxes) they don't expect companies commitment to do what is government problem. The average american seems to believe the state should be as small as possible, and people should take care of their lives by their own as we can see by how much USA citizens refuse to take vaccines only because they distrust state policies

Just my random observations of course