Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Okay... ANOTHER Republican senator sex scandal? Are you ^(%&*)_^* me??
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
If that's hypocrisy, then everyone who's not a true anarchist shares the same hypocrisy.
Yup, as is anyone who tries to impose his will over others. That's kinda my point here.
Which includes you, up until such time as your anarchist paradise arrives. It includes every Republican politician and almost every single voter in the country.
Oh well, you WERE being logical until you moved into the old appeal to ridicule zone...pity, you were doing so well, too.
Are you in favor of using taxes to pay for the military or not?
If yes, how much of your money do you donate to national defense?
You might say that it's constitutional, but that's a red herring. That doesn't change what it is.
No I am not in favor of it, but I accept it. I already said this.
That means I a consistent advocate for liberty. One who doesn't want socialism to increase. In fact, I do not believe in forced taxation at all. Again I accept it, but do not favor it or believe in it. I am completely consistent, today, tomorrow, or any other time.
What difference does that make in practice? How do you know those politicians don't merely "accept" the need for taxes as well?
It's not just liberal politicians that expect you to pay your taxes. It's just a question of how much and what it gets spent on. Call it hypocrisy if you want, but it's not exclusive to the left. It's a hypocrisy that comes from living in the real world rather than a hypothetical.
How do we know? because of what the SAY and what they DO. Hypocrisy is about what you advocate, not what you accept.
I never said it is exclusive to the left -- have you even been reading what I am writing. I have quite clearly said BOTH sides are hypocrites. Noit sure what you are getting at here.
And no, the hypocrisy that wants to force others to pay for charity yet refuses to give of itself is hypocrisy that comes from being a hypocrite and advocating something that you will not live by yourself. that the left and the right are equally guilty of, whether they are advocating a Marxist morality or a Christian one.
However, if you want to make the case that in some ways everyone is a hypocrite, OF COURSE WE ARE. We all have rules in our head and we break them every day. That is why we need forgiveness and redemption.
Again, that invalidates the OP.
Anyway I know how your deconstructionsim works. It is easy to destroy all reason with the misuse of logic. Been there, done that and it is not very productive; because your way of thinking leads us with nothing in the end. deconstructionism is a useful tool, but used the way you are using it -- gets us nowhere fast.
Alright, everyone's a hypocrite. I guess that's as useful a conclusion as we're likely to get out of this discussion. I guess that's something I was missing, so you convinced me of that.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
I believe recognition of rights by people is and was beneficial.
The Civil Rights Movement, note movement, where once again the people provided instructions to the government through the recognition of these rights endowed by the Creator.
"However, by 1955, private citizens became frustrated by gradual approaches to implement desegregation by federal and state governments and the "massive resistance" by proponents of racial segregation and voter suppression. In defiance, these citizens adopted a combined strategy of direct action with nonviolent resistance known as civil disobedience."
Government later expanded that into the mess of political correctness that Fishermage is mentioning interfering with freedom of speech.
(Read that wikipedia link mentioning how the communists of China used it so effectively)
I don't think having to bring up the overturning of the verdict against firefighters recently should be necessary.
Who is the benefit, USPS or competitors, during this situation?
"These services also deliver packages which are larger and heavier than what the USPS will accept, and unlike the USPS assign tracking numbers to every package."
Even if I was to entertain the answer of a complete "yes" to the consistent question posed, may I ask the consequences? Are we to let a backdoor in letting the government in because only it would offer the ultimate benefit? Or just flat out be the beneficiary?
The answer is not to destroy one coming forward after breaking a standard. (like the OP wants) At least one came forward, demonstrated accountability, and responsibility which are keys in keeping freedom alive and government at bay.
(Hopefully the last line satisfies Gazenthia's condition of being on topic)
That's nice. Also completely irrelevant to the points I was making.
Why don't you open another thread if you want to start a discussion about this topic? As it is, it seems like you're mostly just talking to yourself.
If you're building an mmorpg, or if you'd like to share ideas or talk about this industry, visit Multiplayer Worlds.
Republican morals only apply to you. They can assassin thousands of families and fuck everyone they like and still in God they trust!
But they don't know God don't trust them anymore.
It was started, not by me, that the point of government was to improve the people.
I've listed reasons/examples of people actually improving people. I then provided examples of government actually getting in the way.
Then you asked me whether I was trying to say the government didn't exist.
Gettysburg Address
"government of the people, by the people, for the people"
Webster also noted, "This government, Sir, is the independent offspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of State legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing certain salutary restraints on State sovereignties."
The people are the bosses over the government. Government is at the people's request.
(Supposed to be and I use the game Civilization as an example with the last above sentence)
It was supposed to be kind of fused. Today government is continuing towards separating itself and trying to reverse the boss role. (especially with Obamadom)
There are accountable folks still though and that's important to holding on to what freedom we have.
Trying to say I was promoting complete anarchy/the government didn't exist scenario just didn't make sense to me and I've tried to explain that.
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
Just gets lulzsier and lulsier.
What is the matter with you? Posting the pic of the senator and not the 22 year old intern?
Also, even if you are in some party other than Republican, I don't think the hatred of the Republicans is helpful. I feel that way about Republicans that hate all Democrats as well.
We have different opinions on different issues, but I don't have a blanket hatred of all Republicans. Some of the Republican proposals are good, most are bad, but I don't throw out the good ones just because I hate all Republicans. Same goes for the Dems.
Yup, their morality -- or at least part of it -- is that the ends justify the means. They believe their idea is society is the good, the moral, the just, and they will screw whoever they have to to get there. In fact, however, their ideal society is universal slavery, and they don't care what rights they have to violate, who they must destroy, rob, kill or cheat to get there. Their means are their ends. Crush, kill, destroy.
Their real motivation is power, pure and simple, and they have concocted a perverted moralty to get there.
I see you have taken Faxxer's propaganda habbit of using over dramatization to get your point across. Issues like universal healthcare is hardly destroy, or rob or kill.
To say their real motivation is power is downright silly. Their intention wasn't to get control, as I just explained, it's to have an effect on human society. Enforcing your religion onto other people without having any intention to improve society, that is a motivation for power.
Under which president did the US go to war with Iraq? ah yes, a republican president. Thousands of Iraq citizens dead, thousands of american soldiers dead, and for what? The weapons of mass destruction that weren't there? Or was it to free Iraq?
What's that again? The end justifies the means?
If you want to discuss the Iraq war, and whether that is the result of Marxist ethics on the President, Republican Party, and the Democrats who voted for it, please start a thread. If you want to discuss how each party pushes morality down people's throats, please let us continue.
You may claim that they do it for "good" reasons, and in that case it means I am right in the first case -- it is a MORALITY you are pushing. You are CLAIMING based upon your morality that X is GOOD, and then you seek to impose this on others. That's forcing YOUR morality on others.
However I don't believe that. I believe that leftists have created a perverted morality, which, according to one of your own progenitors, "the end justifies the means." I didn't say that, YOUR guy did.
I call him YOUR guy because If you study the history of the American Democratic Party (since you are young and not really very familiar with American History, I understand why you don't know this), but the American Communist Party put forward a multi-point program over half a century ago. So-called liberal mostly through the Democrats, have pushed almost this entire program through, all in the name of your morality.
If you are going to comment on the politics of another country, I would suggest you learn its history a bit more first.
It is not a simple "morality" issue. By your definition of morality, everytime a bridge is built, research is funded or a road is made with tax dollars, they do it to enforce "morality".
The reason why the health care plan is suggested is because the health care in the United States is a joke compared to other industralized nations. The reason the Health care plan is suggested is to improve aspects of society.
Your republican friend, however, had no such motivation. His motivation, like many christian conservatives, is can only be described as religious enslavement. There is a world of difference between pushing a plan to increase an aspect of society and religious enslavement.
In a sense, it is, a BRIDGE is being defined as something GOOD. Your side wants economic enslavement and that is far, far more obvious than any conservatives want religious enslavement.
The fact that you consider it "increasing an aspect of society" shows taht it IS a moral choice. If you consider it an INCREASE, then you consider it as GOOD, which means it is moral. No difference at all with conservatives.
EDIT: note he is not my Republican friend, and I have yet to defend his actions or his advocacy of "Christian" morality. I am merely showing you how you are no different from him. I'm against both of you.
Again if you do not understand the differences between conservatism and libertarianism, you ought not comment on it.
Apparently you're unable to comprehend the difference between increasing a functionality of a society and religious enslavement. By your way of reason, every single time tax dollars are spend on whatever aspect of society, it's because of "Morality".
Who are you trying to kid? You have been desperately trying, along with Faxxer, to change the subject of this thread into a democrat/liberal bashing post, trying to downplay what he did and using propaganda lines such as "They are trying to destroy and kill!"
Actually, no -- I am saying that BOTH sides legislate morality, and BOTH sides are hypocrites. I am not turning anything into anything -- it is what it is.
Okay, so now you are claming this "functionality" as your MORAL GOOD. You can shift the words all you want, you are still seeking to legislate morality.
I never said anyone is TRYING to destroy and kill, just that they are WILLING to destroy and kill in their quest for power. The ends justifies the means. Sorry it's simply what leftists believe in and it is part of their morality.
Actually, no. You'll notice that you spend 90% of your post trying to change the subject to a democrat bashing one and then mentions at the end "Oh but both sides are bad, mkay?". You're not fooling anyone here.
You continue to desperately try to pretend as if religious enslavement is on the same level as improving functionality of society. If you do understand that there is a huge amount of difference then there is no real reason to continue to debate with you, because any debate is pointless if you do understand this basic concept.
You can call it "Morality" all you want, it's not going to change that one motivation is to improve aspect of society, the other to enslave the population to religion.
Oh so you said they are willing to destroy and kill in their quest for power? It's good you mentioned this because this totally makes it better [/sarcasm]
Sorry, but it's not "simply what leftist believe". It's a Bullshit propaganda line that doesn't have any truth in it.
If you are calling it an improvement, you are saying it is GOOD -- therefore you are making a moral judgment. There is nothing desparate here, simply taking your own statements in context and showing how you are no different than a fundamentalist Christian (or Muslim) in wanting to shove YOUR morality down everyone's throats.
Plus if you do not understand the difference between ends and means you have proven my point for me.
The whole point of Goverment is to make decision that improve society, not to enslave society to a religion.
You need to understand the difference first if you have any hope of having an objective and realistic view.
Yes and that is a MORAL endeavor, and one that God endorses, according to the men who wrote the constitution. Our constitution is a MORAL document. I believe in the morals behind that document. You don't.
On the presidential seal it says Annuit Coeptis, which means "Our favored undertaking." This means God is on our side. Our founders thought our entire national undertaking was ordained by God.
Our country, and all political thought, is the expression of morality in human action.
Even if you consider it a moral, it doesn't support your argument in any way or form because they are not on the same level.
When a goverment makes a decision to improve an aspect or certain aspects of society, that is a goverment doing its job.
When a goverment is making a decision to enslave people to a religion, it's a goverment abusing its position.
Then a governments job is to do moral things. You still have not proven anyone wants to enlave anyone to any religion. You are simply making things up and then arguing from your imagination.
Governments ARE morals in action.
Oh you're going to try to deny that it's not an attempt at enslavement of religion?
Let's go back to our republican friend mentioned in the OP.
Now, why would he oppose, say, gay marriage? let's do multiple choice
A - He has found scientific evidence that gay marriage harms society
B - he has found scientific evidence that gay marriage is harmful to individuals
C - he is a christian and believes homosexuality is bad and wants everybody else to be limited in their freedom because of that.
geez, i wonder which one of those is true?
Oh he is also opposed to gay couples adopting children?
what could the possibilities be?
A - He has found scientific evidence that gays adopting children is harmful and disproves the many scientific studies that show gay couples are very capable parents
B - He is a christian and believes homosexuality is evil and becaus he thinks its evil everybody else must follow his religious laws.
mmhm, i wonder which of these is true.
I mean, it's not like christians in power have a history of enforcing their belief onto every body else, it's not like "under god" was added to the pledge of allegiance years after it was first written, it's not like "In god we trust" was added to the dollar bill and..oh, wait..
Gay Marriage has always been illegal in the United States, and in the rest of the world for that matter. It is a recent thing taht people like you and I are trying to convince people that gay marriage is as much a right as straight marriage. Has America always been a religious slave state? Hardly.
Adding "In God We Trust" to our money (I'm against that just as much as you are by the way) is an attempt to enslave people? You do realize how nutty this sounds right? Nuttier than anything I have ever said here, that's for darn sure.
I guess every country in Europe that has a state religion (that's most of them) are religious slave states. YOu really need to read more. You seem to have no understanding of opposing views, or the history of your own views.
The United states has been in some ways a slave to religion. In God we Trust is indeed a way to enslave people to a religion. What else did you think it's for? Decoration? It's an attempt to push religion onto society.
Indeed, many countries in Europe are still enslaved to religion in certain ways. Even my country, a country well known for liberal views, have only recently started to move away from religious enslavement, at the same time the amount of religious believers is also reducing.
every attempt, every vote, every law that restricts a person what they can do because of religious belief is an attempt at religious enslavery.
We'll talk more after you read some more. Yes yes the opiate of the people and all that. Man you are so living in 1917.
Edit: It is very ironic that a young man who would actually enslave others -- that is, force one man to labor for another, claims that the religion which actually ENDED slavery, got women the right to vote, and started the civil rights movement is attempting to enslave people. Sorry, I find walking backwards boring. I want to go forward. Nothing stranger than reactionary lefties. Peace man. Good luck with your intolerant religion (neo-Marxism).
You really need to take some time and read some opposing views. Break free from your programming and step into a wider, deeper world.
You need to start looking at reality and see what modern Christians in power are up to, perhaps you might also even find out that the anarchy you suggest is also nothing more than a flawed ideal that no well thinking modern society would ever adapt..
I live in 1917? That's strange, last time I checked, Christians are still trying to get gay marriage banned, get prostitution banned, gay adoption banned, abortion banned, euthanasia banned and many other crap is still being fought over to this day. This isn't walking backwards, this is the reality we live in today. If your view of christian population is one of tolerance, think again. I can't even do my grocery shopping on Sunday.
How many books or how many anarchist theories have you read? what challenges to those theories have you read? Please, read some more about the things you disagree with. I have read dozens of books and taken courses and written papers on what YOU believe in -- most of that while you were still in diapers. When you read more about the history of anarchism, and more about the history of the Marxism you follow, we'll discuss anarchocapitalism and the road there.
Gay marriage are is already not allowed. We are trying to enact change and grant people those rights in the name of equality, and some Christians, Obama included, disagree. It is a debate within society right now, with some Christians, jews and Muslims on one side and us on the other. gay adoption as well. It is a change We are trying to bring about and like Gay marriage there are Christians on both sides. VERY few people anywhere believe in Euthanasia. Abortion is another debate, but YOU are intolerant of the opposing view. It is YOU who wants to shut down debate with hate.
Nobody is trying to enslave anyone in these areas -- no, it is YOU who believes in slavery, which is forced labor. Slavery is a part of YOUR intolerant religion.
My view of Christians is as varied as Christians are. I am a Christian, and I am a libertarian -- and I agree with you on all of the things you bring up, only I'm not hateful and intolerant as you are about these things. Obama is a Christian, and he is a liberal (but he is as against gay marriage as must Republicans are). Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton. All the Bushes, John McCain, almost everyone in my government is a Christian and they all have VERY different views on things -- all of which come from their interpretation of their faith.
YOUR intolerance comes from YOUR religion, which is some strange form of neo-Marxism that you have never challenged, just sucked up by osmosis from your socialist education.
Please, Just read. Stop with the hate, It will not serve you in your life.
Please also, it doesn't serve you when you speak about a country you seem to know very little about.
EDIT: also since the 1917 reference flew right over your head proves beyond any doubt that you really need to read a heck of a lot more before you are capable of even discussing these things.
Your libertarian propaganda of "Paying taxes = slavery" is not going to convince anybody here. Liberatianism has no modern example. Well there is the Libertarian paradise of Somalia, but I won't go there.
Also, Obama doesn't think gay marriage should be banned, he believes marriage should be between a man and a woman, but does not believe it should be banned.
I am not opposed to opposing views which are built upon reason and logic. The arguments against gay marriage, gay abortion, euthanasia, Creationism in schools and much more are not built upon reasonable arguments and logic, but on religious dogma. At the moment there is no debate going on. If you think Christians in power are open for debate, you need a reality check. They will ignore any contradicting evidence or logical thoughts, stick to their bible or and use that to control how other people live. Perhaps if you spend more time looking at reality and less time cosplaying as Star Wars characters,you might see the real face of modern religion.
If you give modern christians in power the option to enforce everybody to their religion,they'd do it.
Gameloading, We'll talk more after you have educated yourself about the actual history and current affairs in the US. Now you are just repeating things you don't know much about, over and over.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Your idea of "educate yourself" is "agreeing with me".
Your idea of "educate yourself" is "agreeing with me".
Actually, no. Some of my best friends are highly educated liberals. I enjoy vigorous debate, but not with those ill-equipped for it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
You don't have to be religious to oppose this. Isn't someone technically killing someone or aiding them? As far as I know murder is against the law.
I can still respect an opposing viewpoint though and wanted to show a non-religious viewpoint since religion is so hated in your mindset.
Right to life
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
AC2 Player RIP Final Death Jan 31st 2017
Refugee of Auberean
Refugee of Dereth
A neat little piece on one of the few people on the left who actually still believe in freedom:
groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/hentoff.html
Here's his wiki page:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nat_Hentoff
Oh, and I still disagree with him on abortion politically, but I respect his views on it.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
You don't have to be religious to oppose this. Isn't someone technically killing someone or aiding them? As far as I know murder is against the law.
I can still respect an opposing viewpoint though and wanted to show a non-religious viewpoint since religion is so hated in your mindset.
Right to life
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
Because it seems everyone opposed to his views must be christan. Someone is not allowed to see euthanasia or abortion as murder without being christan it seems.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Also many people forget how many Christians are pro-choice. I'm technically non-denominational, but I usually worship at a UCC Church (except when I attend a friends mission church because I'm buds with the praise band). They are pro-choice, for the most part.
Here's a nice little discussion:
chuckcurrie.blogs.com/chuck_currie/2004/11/can_christians_.html
This guy Chuck Currie is to the left of me, but he is as Christian as Obama and me. I respect his views, as I even respect gameloadings views. I even respect ignorance since it is something that can be changed. What I find harder to resepct is the rejection of actually reading and tolerating opposing views.
he doesn't even understand that HIS country is free because of protestantism. In fact, his own atheism is an outgrowth of Chistianity, since it was Christianity that promoted the self-questioning that led to Unitarianism, universalism, as well as atheism. Even Marxism and modern liberalism itself is an attempt to secularize the Christian ethic and Golden Rule.
I spent years studying under some truly brilliant Marxists, specifically to challenge myself and hone my arguments. I wish those on the left would do the same.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
You don't have to be religious to oppose this. Isn't someone technically killing someone or aiding them? As far as I know murder is against the law.
I can still respect an opposing viewpoint though and wanted to show a non-religious viewpoint since religion is so hated in your mindset.
Right to life
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore.
It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this.
Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations.
I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
You don't have to be religious to oppose this. Isn't someone technically killing someone or aiding them? As far as I know murder is against the law.
I can still respect an opposing viewpoint though and wanted to show a non-religious viewpoint since religion is so hated in your mindset.
Right to life
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore.
It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this.
Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations.
I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
fishermage.blogspot.com
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
If it were not for Jesus I would not get extra money for working on xman and easter:P
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I had to check where you live.
Does this law apply to Jewish businesses also?
Here, on Easter Sunday, if you want to go out to get a bite to eat, the Jewish deli's are open.
You'd be surprised how many Christians know this.........
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
If it were not for Jesus I would not get extra money for working on xman and easter:P
LOL. Damn straight!
fishermage.blogspot.com
Excuse me......are you trying to imply that Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus did not fight against the Fuhrer?
Wow....just wow!
Excuse me......are you trying to imply that Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus did not fight against the Fuhrer?
Wow....just wow!
Obviously not.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Excuse me......are you trying to imply that Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus did not fight against the Fuhrer?
Wow....just wow!
Obviously not.
Well, you did seem to leave them out when passing around credit for the defeat of Hitler.
A nice quote from Einstein, a fellow Jew who is thankful for Christian resistance to Hitler:
"Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly."
fishermage.blogspot.com
Excuse me......are you trying to imply that Jews, Sikhs, Muslims and Hindus did not fight against the Fuhrer?
Wow....just wow!
Obviously not.
Well, you did seem to leave them out when passing around credit for the defeat of Hitler.
Nope, it was only in response to gameloading's hatred of Christians. Had he made an anti-semitic comment, or an anti-hindu comment, and so on, I may have said something else. But then you knew that and are obviously trolling and baiting as usual. Thank you for your time.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Let us look at the definition of euthanasia shall we?
eu·tha·na·sia [yoo-thuh-ney-zhuh, -zhee-uh, -zee-uh]
–noun 1. Also called mercy killing. the act of putting to death painlessly or allowing to die, as by withholding extreme medical measures, a person or animal suffering from an incurable, esp. a painful, disease or condition.
2. painless death.
You don't have to be religious to oppose this. Isn't someone technically killing someone or aiding them? As far as I know murder is against the law.
I can still respect an opposing viewpoint though and wanted to show a non-religious viewpoint since religion is so hated in your mindset.
Right to life
Again recognizing that there are "rights of life" and not just "reproductive rights". The same technicality exists under abortion. Recognition of rights are colliding and that's why these two issues are so hotly debated.
There is also the possibility of a backdoor with these two issues and the government being able to put whoever it wants to death.
Same thing with traditional marriage issue. The people at the moment wanted to keep marriage in a traditional definition, example is California, probably for the same backdoor reason.
(government can start setting standards and defining but that's up to the states atm)
With creationism we have an alternate theory being taught among the evolution. Isn't it oppressive to chuck out something while teaching another?
Anyway I don't see where religion is necessarily enslaving this discussion. I've tried to approach this rationally and see no loss of logic here.
Why can't you grocery shop? I don't live in your part of the world obviously and hate to comment on other's countries for that reason but in our less socialist country, since it's been creeping up over the years, I'm not asking anyone's religion nor are they preaching to me in a grocery store.
Maybe it could be your government you're not happy with. (or something else?)
No decent person would keep a person who is going through unbearable suffering and pain with no other option and has a request to die alive.
The vast majority of people against gay marriage do so out of religious reasons. It's not like anyones marriage would be affected in any way if gays were supposed to get marriage. Besides it's not like Marriage in the US hasn't changed before, there was a time when interracial marriage wasn't allowed. Nobody frowns upon interracial marriage anymore.
It isn't oppressive to keep creationism out of schools. Creationism isn't an alternate theory because it isn't a theory at all.
A scientific theory has to be provenf with significant scientific evidence and endure criticism from many directs. only then will it be allowed to be taught in science books in class. There is no reason why Creationism should be excused from this.
Creationism is really religion in disguise, called creationism or intelligent design to make it look more scientificy. obviously as religion is based on faith, not scientific evidence, it widely rejected as a scientific theory by scientist due to a lack of evidence.
I do not want to claim that everybody who is against abortion, gay marriage or any of the other issues i mentioned are christians, but lets also not turn a blind eye to reality: The vast majority are christian or part of another religion and do so out of religious motivations.
I can't do my grocery shoppings on sunday because the christians believe sunday should be a day of rest. Thus, the vast majority of shops have to be closed every sunday by law.
And were it not for Christians, you would be saluting the Fuhrer. Things are a bit more complicated than your narrow, intolerant mindset.
Congratulations, you just posted something that is completely irrelevant.
But ofcourse i'm the one that's intolerant for not saying "Hey, you make a perfectly fine point" to people who don't make a good point and "respecting" the views of people who wish to enforce religion on me. That doesn't make me intolerant.
Everybody can be as religious as they want, but there is no reason why it should be enforced on me. Rejecting that does not make me intolerant.
@olddaddy: all shops must be closed, but there are a few exceptions such as tourist spots and special sundays where shops are allowed to be open.
You and Einstein, "fellow" Jews as you like to point out, DO realize that Christians were not the only ones to resist Hitler, and that some Christians actually turned Jews in to the SS, don't you? It was a two sided coin.
That the Wehrmacht was comprised of German Christians?
That the SA was comprised predominately of people that thought of themselves as Christians, rather than being comprised of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddists, etc?
That even today many harbor hard feelings against the Catholic Church in Rome for not being more outspoken in sermons to the German Catholics against the persecution of Jews?
And that the unbelievers, aka the Soviets, died by the millions toppling Hitler?
You have a really narrow minded, twisted view of history......