Politics and Beliefs
Pages
| Author | Topic: Politics and Beliefs |
|---|---|
|
Warrior
Member # 6268
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 12:42
Profile
I am just curious about the political standing of people on these boards. You do not have to post stating your views. Poll Information This poll contains 10 question(s). 67 user(s) have voted. You may not view the results of this poll without voting. function launch_voter () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=vote;pollid=kFVIjUiNKJtn"); return true; } // end launch_voter function launch_viewer () { launch_window("http://www.ironycentral.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=poll;d=view;pollid=kFVIjUiNKJtn"); return true; } // end launch_viewer function launch_window (url) { preview = window.open( url, "preview", "width=550,height=300,toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status,menubar=no,scrollbars,resizable,copyhistory=no" ); window.preview.focus(); return preview; } // end launch_window   -------------------- Un ronron ronchonne, un ronfleur ronfle. Un rongeur ronge, un roi règne, une orange roule. Ça c'est la réalité. Mais si le ronchon ronge, le ronfleur ronchonne, Le roi roule, le rongeur règne Et l'orange ronfle, Ça c'est une autre histoire. Posts: 66 | Registered: Saturday, September 3 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 1993
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 14:22
Profile
1 communist? hm ... >_> <_< TM? back in disguise? :) I'm glad to see that the majority cares for environment; independent from their political view. -------------------- ^ö^ vegetarians are sexy. Posts: 1420 | Registered: Wednesday, October 2 2002 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 14:37
Profile
Homepage
quote:Well, even if it is, TM's going to have fun with this thread once the discussion picks up. And it will, most likely. Yes, very nice to see some fellow pro-environment people, as well as a general tendency towards free-thinking. Interesting that the answers on individual issues (the Intelligent Design ones in particular) don't follow the pattern that the rest of the results do. Still, I would've preferred to see an "Independent" choice on pol. beliefs. -------------------- Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice. I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion. Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00 |
|
Mongolian Barbeque
Member # 1528
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 14:39
Profile
Among the choices of "Socialist" and "Reactionary" you didn't have "Wearily and Calculatedly Indifferent." So no vote. All semi-jesting aside, I'd consider myself a libertarian, though not as extreme as the Libertarian Party proper. By and large I hate all politics, since it's all villains wearing different masks trying to bamboozle people into giving them more power. Different powermongers like to push conservative buttons, others liberal buttons. But their aims and desires are the same — black hearts through and through. The U.S. war in Iraq is just the powermongers throwing their weight around while pretending to be sanctimonious. Power means nothing to these people unless they're doing something with it, and without people to praise them for their "valorous deeds." And as far as laws are concerned — laws are not the solution to society's ills. As the past 6,000 years should've adequately demonstrated. -------------------- The A.E. van Vogt Information Site My Tribute to the Greatest Writer of the Science Fiction Golden Age Posts: 907 | Registered: Monday, July 15 2002 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 14:59
Profile
Homepage
These answers obviously may vary depending on the home country of the person answering. Believing in the need for more environmental regulation in the E.U. is somewhat different than believing in that need in the U.S. Same for tax cuts, same for other things. Minimum wage nationally in the U.S. is already $5.15, isn't it? Around here it's $6.75. (EDIT: Yes.) Also, I would've liked to be able to choose that I think that gay marriage should be legal but it should be up to the states. That is, I think that all the states need to pass gay marriage laws, as happened with women's suffrage a century ago shortly before the constitutional amendment came through. Similarly, I chose "I disagree, but we should stick it out" for the war in Iraq question as the one which most nearly matches my actual opinion: we seriously need to change our approach, but we can't just walk out now. I also would've liked a "No more tax cuts, dammit" option. I would start my economic policy by repealing Bush's tax cuts in order to bring the deficit back in line. [ Friday, October 07, 2005 15:03: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6347
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 15:45
Profile
Yay! Politics, religion and the environment. Always good fun. :D A very interesting poll, I must say. Because I like to rant, and for the record, if/when we turn this thread into a proper, full-fledged discussion of the issues brought up, here are my answers with some commentary. ... Question 1 of 10: Where do you consider yourself politically? A: Liberal Slightly tricky. None of the offered choices made me say "Oh yes, that's me! *click*". I had to think a bit, and I guess Liberal sounded best. It was vague enough. As much as the ideal of Communism might be nice in theory n' all, there's simply no way it could ever work in reality. It goes too much against human nature. I like Socialism, but I don't honestly know enough about it and how it works to call myself a Socialist. Question 2 of 10: What do you think of the war in Iraq? A: I disagree, but we should stick it out. It should never have happened. But it did. Now, if the US pulled out, I believe it'd leave a bigger mess there than there was before. Because of this, I can't help but feel they have a duty to set things right as best they can. This said, though, I also think they should do it ASAP and get out of there. Question 3 of 10: Should abortion be legal? Yes, in all cases. I'm biased, because I have a somewhat "special" view on death, but that's my answer. It's about choice. There are far too many people in this world who become parents, but simply aren't ready, whether it be emotional, psychological or economical readiness. Question 4 of 10: What do you think of the issue of gay marriage? A: It should be allowed. I chose this answer, but honestly, I'm not entirely sure what the legal difference is between "marriage" and "civil union". As far as I'm concerned, the important aspect is rights and equality. if the only difference between marriage and civil union is the religious aspect of marriage, then I'd say, as a bottom line, civil union is enough. But... what about gay Christians? Sure, they won't be hardcore Christians, but I have no doubts that there are homosexuals and lesbians who, at least to a certain degree, ascribe to the Christian faith. It would seem unfair to me (but I'm not Christian) to stop them from getting married. What if they follow a different faith, though? What if they're Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or anything else? North America prides itself on being a land of freedom. But sometimes, it doesn't quite seem like it. Question 5 of 10: Do you think creationism and/or Intelligent Design is equal to evolution? A: Neither Creationism nor Intelligent Design are equal to evolution. I said they aren't equal. But that's not entirely true. They're not equal insofar as that Creationism and Intelligent Design are religious in nature, whereas Evolution is scientific. But then I'd argue that Science is a religion, thereby making them equal. I'm not a great believer in empirical facts (who knows what "fact" will be proven wrong in a year, ten years, one hundred years, by advances of science?), but within the context of Science being a religion (or "belief system & world view", if you will... that's all religion is, in the end) based on "fact" (factual to the best of our present knowledge, at any rate), Creationism and Intelligent Design simply have no place along Evolution. It's like comparing apples and oranges. They're all fruits, but beyond that, the apple of science (I had to say apple... what with Newton and all) and the orange of Creationism/Intelligent Design are quite different in their base assumptions. I mean... intelligent design vs. non-intelligent design... I'd say that's a pretty big difference, wouldn't you? Question 6 of 10: Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools alongside evolution? A: It has no place in schools. Again, that's not an entirely honest answer on my part, but the closest I was comfortable with. It depends how you approach the matter. I was tempted to say "It should be taught alongside evolution." But if that were to happen, I'd also want them to teach the creation myths of the other major world religions as well. Now, this is a topic I've been meaning to research for a while, but I keep forgetting/putting it off. Evolution is science. Fine. When I was in high school, I don't remember anybody ever telling me that evolution/the big bang was the absolute truth. Simply that this was "our best theory up to now". I find that perfectly acceptable. I have nothing against Creationism/Intelligent Design, but I simply don't see how they can have a place in a science class. From Wikipedia: quote:If and when Intelligent Design reaches a point where enough people have done scientific research on the subject, and have "facts" and "evidence" to back it up (or at least call it a proper theory, within a scientific context), I'd be all for teaching it alongside evolution. Unfortunately, to the best of my understanding, I don't believe Intelligent Design has reached this level yet. In the end, I take science as much as the major world religions with a grain of salt, and I have no doubts that all are wrong about many things. I also have no doubts that all are quite right about many things. I simply can't see how anyone can yet distance Intelligent Design from religion, let alone Christian Creationism. I personally don't believe in a sentient, creating deity, but I'm also a deeply spiritual man, so I find all of the offered theories of our origins lacking or at least one-sided. Call science Science. And call religion Religion. Teach all of them. Just don't label any of them as the absolute truth, and let people make up their own mind. The problem with teaching religion in schools is... which one? All of them? What's "all" mean? Where do you draw the line? There are so many different schools of spiritual thought. The "big three" come to mind, of course: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. But in the end, they're all just different versions of the same thing. Hinduism would have to be added to the mix. There are certainly enough Hindus on our planet to warrant that. But again, where do you draw the line? IMHO, it would have to be by global percentage of the faithful. If we are to teach one, then any faith which is widespread enough to be shared by X% of the world's population, it should be taught as well. Question 7 of 10: Do you think the minimum wage should be raised? A: It should be raised to between $5 to $10 an hour. This is a tricky one. I'm Canadian. I don't know what minimum wage is in the US, nor do I know what the situation is. In Canada, minimum wage is 7.25$ I think (about 6.20$ US), and I'd like to see it at 10$ (8.50$ US). Of course, more would be nice, but I'm trying to be realistic. Question 8 of 10: Who do you think should get tax cuts the most? A; The lowest 25%. I was tempted to say "Between the lower 25% and %50 of earners." I went with the lowest 25%, though, because I think they're the ones that need it most. Though I wouldn't go so far as to say that they're the only ones that need it. Basically, I'd like to see less and less cuts as income rises. The most for the poor, the least for the rich. The rich have always found ways of getting around taxes, and always will. It's the poorest that need the most help. Question 9 of 10: Do you believe there should be more limitations and controls on companies? A: There should be a few more limitations. I was tempted to say there should be a lot more limitations... but vague as the question is, I found this answer more appropriate. I do tend to be paranoid, and see world-dominating cyberpunkish megacorp neo-monarchs as a clear and present danger to our society. But, yeah, that's probably just my paranoia talking. I have no doubts that corporations need to be watched more carefully, though. If left unchecked, they'll do nothing but grow in power and become the new world order. Question 10 of 10: Should the environment be protected more? A: Yes, there should be more regulations on emmissions and development. This was the easiest question to answer. And looking at the poll results, it does seem most people agree. We're raping our planet, and it's our children who will pay the price. We'll pay the price as well, but I don't think it'll be anywhere near as expensive for us than for the next few generations if we don't do something... if there even are new generations... -------------------- "Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 15:48
Profile
and I thought you were joking when you said your posts were long. Damnnnn, but it was very interesting indeed. Edit: and it only took 5 minutes to read. [ Friday, October 07, 2005 15:49: Message edited by: Marlenny ] Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6347
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:12
Profile
Hehe... no... I don't kid when I talk about my post size. ;) And thank you, that's quite a compliment. :) I do my best. I know my posts are gonna be long. So the least I can do is at least try to them as easy to read/entertaining as I can. ~bows~ ... quote:Indeed, the huge percentage of "Let's save the environment!" choices is heartening to see. :) quote:Indeed. But unless I'm mistaken, the question is not as much which party you'd vote for as what your personal beliefs are in relation to modes of societal structure. quote:Sad, but unfortunately probably true. Religion and justice have always been humanity's favorite excuses for war. And I do emphasize "excuses". In truth, though, that's rarely (if ever?) what they're about. I find it interesting how the US' "reasons" for "liberating" (invading) Iraq were so shoddy and ever-changing. First with the WMDs (which weren't there), then national security (Saddam never was a threat to the US) and finally the all encompassing, honorable war on terror (the war in Iraq allowed Al Quaeda to come in. Saddam's regime was secular. He may have been glad about what they had done to the US, but it's not like he'd allow Jihadists free reign at home). quote:Perhaps not solutions, but still required on some level, no? Or are you advocating complete anarchy? Although, it's true that society's ills won't be corrected by simply telling people "you're not allowed to do that". quote:Of course, location makes a big difference. But if you keep in vague and general enough, I think that most can agree that something has to be done about the environment, no matter where they are. What has to be done, exactly, might vary from place to place, but the bottom line remains. The environment is somewhat more of a global issue, though. Of course minimum wage, etc. will vary more widely depending on the local situation. quote:So if one state wants to be a bastion of purity and outlaw anything related to homosexuality, you'd support that? On one hand, I can understand and respect a state's prerogative to set its own laws, so as best to serve the majority of its population. After all, that's what democracy is about, and the gays can always move if they really have a problem with it. But on the other hand, what about basic human rights of equality? How far can we, as a whole, as a global society, allow individual groups, states, small countries, etc. to decide what's okay and what's not? For example, if a state wanted to make murder legal, and the majority of its citizens agreed, should we allow that? An extreme example, of course, but hopefully it illustrates my point. quote:How is your actual opinion different from the answer you chose? I blame it on my brain being mush... but I don't see the difference. quote:Hehehe... ;) A nice idea, in an ideal world. How would you help deal with poverty, though? Various subsidies? Wouldn't a tax cut for the poorest help out a lot? And poor as they are, it's not like they'd make a big dent in the deficit anyways, would they? -------------------- "Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 6278
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:18
Profile
Homepage
Hmmmm. I'm not sure how much or little a US $ is worth - i tend think of any "foreign" currency as Monopoly-Money... No, don't shout at me now, I know I'm ignorant. I aimed for the highest min.wages. Min.wages here are something above £5 for even the sh*ttiest of jobs, so surely $5 isn't fair...? Taxes..... oh well. No idea what you guy are doing over there or what the situation is. I used to be paid with tax money, so I'll shut up about that one :) Creationism/ID isn't that much of an issue here, I think. I follow the funny court cases, yes. But over here your parents stick you in the school of their preference. If that's a science-orientated school run by evolutionists or a catholic school run by nuns.... you get the picture. *Vote Laurana for Pope!* Edit: fixed typo (.....and fixed again!) [ Friday, October 07, 2005 16:25: Message edited by: Laurana ] -------------------- I outnumbered them one to thirty! Posts: 33 | Registered: Tuesday, September 6 2005 07:00 |
|
Master
Member # 4614
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:34
Profile
Homepage
Abortion and homosexuality should not happen. Maybe if the mother is in danger and the baby is likely to die anyway, an exception might be made, but for general purposes, no. I'm tending to subscribe more and more to Evolution by Intelligent Design. I can elaborate if you want, but I see that scientific evidence points strongly toward a world that is much older than 6000 years. Most of you know my general political standing. -------------------- -ben4808 For those who love to spam: CSM Forums RIFQ Posts: 3360 | Registered: Friday, June 25 2004 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:46
Profile
Homepage
Man. Homosexuality, abortion, environmentalism, politics, Iraq, taxes AND evolution. Enough here to keep us arguing until the sky caves in. :P I'm probably in the minority on every single issue. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6347
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:48
Profile
quote:Allow me to introduce you to a very useful little site. ;) http://www.xe.com/ It'll change any currency into any other. 5£ is 8.80251$ USD or 10.3332$ CAD. That's quite nice! Then again, things are very expensive in the UK. :( That's another important factor to consider: cost of living. quote:Thing is, abortion doesn't just happen. It takes a conscious, concerted effort to bring about. Homosexuality, on the other hand, just happens. It's a natural phenomena. It's not just some "crazy human invention". Saying something "should not happen" is all well and good, but it does. Abortion is a human invention, homosexuality isn't. How do you propose to control a natural event? quote:Please do elaborate! quote:I'm new, so I don't know. ;) I wouldn't mind a quick nutshell. :) -------------------- "Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00 |
|
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:52
Profile
You have no idea what you just did Muji. DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT give incentives to Ben about his Bush supporting ideas. Edit: When it comes to politics, it basically goes like this: Every Sw member vs Ben (and someone else, can't remember the name). [ Friday, October 07, 2005 16:54: Message edited by: Marlenny ] Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:55
Profile
All of this can be answered by admitting that we are the characters in a novel. Until we can prove that we really exist, who cares about endgame? *this message sponsored by kant* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6347
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 16:57
Profile
quote:Haha, indeed! :D Huzzah for unending discussion. ;) quote::eek: In that case, Ben, I invite you to PM me. I don't want everybody mad at me for opening Pandora's box. Or is that Ben's box? Whatever... :P quote:I saw a movie like that, once. It was about this guy who was pissed off at God, because his life sucked. The movie was about the main character's quest to find God and ask him why things were the way they were. Along his travels, he met some other people... a young woman who was about to commit suicide by jumping off a bridge, an old bitter priest, and another or two that I can't remember. In the end, they find God. Some novelist, living in his country home. When they get there, God's sitting in his backyard, writing peacefully. So they start questioning him n' all... Them: "Why, oh why? Why all the pain, suffering and misery?" God: "My life sucks. What, you think I'd give my characters a happy life? No way!" It was a comedy. And it was French. Very bizarre movie, but quite entertaining. ... On a more serious note, though, I doubt we could ever truly prove we exist. For to do that, we'd all have to agree on a definition of what "to exist" means, and I seriously doubt humanity will ever manage that one. Even then, even if we did. I think the "Truth" can't be proven in the empirical sense I think you mean. As for caring, I do... but to explain why, well... we'd be here a long time. ;) [ Friday, October 07, 2005 17:03: Message edited by: Muji ] -------------------- "Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 932
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 17:00
Profile
quote:I am so very tempted to point out that Ben doesn't have a box, but I'll refrain. -------------------- Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes (March 25, 1998) "Asians are good at Starcraft because they're always squinting, thus they can see things sharply. Remember to always squint in war." ~ Sun-Tzu's The Fart of War Posts: 215 | Registered: Sunday, April 7 2002 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 6278
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 17:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:Yeeeeeeeeees, I know. That's what I'm glued to in the office for half the day. I'm just too plain lazy to look up US Dollars in the middle of the poll :) US $ cheques take approximately 4 - 5 weeks to be negotiated/collected and clear, so I don't accept them anymore. Haven't looked them up since :D -------------------- I outnumbered them one to thirty! Posts: 33 | Registered: Tuesday, September 6 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 6136
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 17:18
Profile
wow there is some complicated questions in there! someone maybe should do a poll about religion or something -------------------- Death to my enemies!! Posts: 446 | Registered: Friday, July 22 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1468
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 17:18
Profile
Homepage
1. Where do you consider yourself politically? Conservative. Probably because I'm a Christian and grew up in a Conservative Christian family. 2. What do you think of the war in Iraq? Agreed at first, then disagreed. I got caught up in all that "patriotic" crap, but then realized how stupid the war was. 3. Should abortion be legal? No, except when the mother is in danger. It should also be legal in the case of rape as well. But it should also be illegal to refuse to sell birth control pills if you sell other types of pharmaceuticals. Prevention is better than abortion IMO. 4. What do you think of the issue of gay marriage? Gay marriage should be illegal. However, civil unions for gays should be allowed. 5. Do you think Creationism and/or Intelligent Design is equal to Evolution? They are equal, because none of them has been scientifically proven. 6. Should Intelligent Design be taught in schools alongside evolution? Yes, absolutely. If you are going to teach the unproven Evolution, you have to teach the unproven Intelligent Design and Creationism. All or none. 7. Do you think the minimum wage should be raised? Not yet. When inflation goes up, minimum wage should go up. 8. Who do you think should get tax cuts the most? The bottom 25%. The poor need them, the rich don't. Some people argue "But the rich earned their money, tax cuts should be equal." Not necessarily. The rich don't always earn their money, and they are the ones who need money the least. 9. Do you believe there should be more limitations and controls on companies? Absolutely. The corporations have too much too much power. There should be laws preventing anyone who works for a corporation or who has worked for one in the past 3 years from getting a job. 10. Should the environment be protected more? Yes, but laws should not be increased a lot. -------------------- "We can learn a lot from crayons. Some are short, some are dull, some are sharp, some are tall. Some have funny names and they are all different colors, but they all learn to live in the same box." "Happy is the man that has wisdom and gets discernment. For having wisdom as gain is better than having silver as gain and having wisdom as produce is better than gold itself" Proverbs 3:14-3:15 The horrible part about life is, you'll never get out of it alive. Currently boycotting: AngelFire, GameFAQ's Everybody should go to this site at least once. Posts: 818 | Registered: Tuesday, July 9 2002 07:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6268
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 17:40
Profile
Oh I forgot; I live in the United States, so liberal = left wing, and conservative = right wing. EDIT: Oh and sorry for some unclear choices. When I asked about the tax cuts, I meant that the tax cut would happen no matter what, and who would you choose to get the most money. Also I find it interesting that most SW players are liberals/socialists/communists. Oh yes, and I'm very socialist, so you can guess what my answers are :cool: . I decided to start this poll because I was researching stuff for a persuasive English paper trying to convince people that Intelligent Design and Creationism have no place in public American schools, and I was curious to what most SW players are politically. [ Friday, October 07, 2005 17:55: Message edited by: Lord Nicodemus ] -------------------- Un ronron ronchonne, un ronfleur ronfle. Un rongeur ronge, un roi règne, une orange roule. Ça c'est la réalité. Mais si le ronchon ronge, le ronfleur ronchonne, Le roi roule, le rongeur règne Et l'orange ronfle, Ça c'est une autre histoire. Posts: 66 | Registered: Saturday, September 3 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 18:11
Profile
Homepage
Damnit! I have nowhere near enough time for this topic, but there are so many things I want to say! :( -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6268
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 18:16
Profile
Say all you want; we will listen and either agree or argue with you. -------------------- Un ronron ronchonne, un ronfleur ronfle. Un rongeur ronge, un roi règne, une orange roule. Ça c'est la réalité. Mais si le ronchon ronge, le ronfleur ronchonne, Le roi roule, le rongeur règne Et l'orange ronfle, Ça c'est une autre histoire. Posts: 66 | Registered: Saturday, September 3 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 18:18
Profile
Homepage
It goes in this order: Read, Comprehend, THEN Post. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6347
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 18:39
Profile
quote:I fully agree with that. I'm all for abortion, but it shouldn't be a decision made lightly. What if it cost a fortune or something? I dunno... By no means am I advocating that people should see human life as cheap and/or easily disposable. Abortion should never be undertaken lightly. Sadly, I can't help but feel as though many people think somewhere along the lines of "It doesn't matter too much if I'm pregnant, I'll just get an abortion". It should, IMO, be a last resort. But I still feel it should be a viable option. Far too many people aren't "worthy" of being parents, for lack of a better term. And I know this sounds bad, but I mean... Parenthood is not something to be undertaken lightly there's no doubt about that. And it seems that a vast number of new parents (I don't want to say "majority", although it does seem that way to me) simply aren't ready. All this energy we spend on abortions vs. no abortions could much better be spent trying to make sure people don't end up in a situation where they'd want to get an abortion. No? Of course, putting a kid up for adoption is always an option, but there's already tons of children without parents waiting to be adopted. Imagine how many there would be without adoptions? What about young teenage girls who did something stupid, or simply got unlucky? If our (by "our", I mean North American) society follows the Right in regards to abortion, I fully expect we'll be hearing a lot more about babies found in dumpsters in dark alleys. But yes, I'm 200% behind you on prevention being better than abortion. quote:What's the difference, exactly? Is it simply the religious aspect? If that's the case, what if it's not a Christian wedding? Or, by the same logic, why should non-Christian weddings be legal? quote:It's called the theory of evolution, not the law of evolution. Nobody says evolution is the Absolute Truth. At least, nobody whose opinion on the subject matters much. As such, it doesn't need proof in the absolute and empirical sense. It is, on the other hand, a theory based on various scientifically-determined facts and observation. This can't be said about Creationism and Intelligent Design. There's nothing wrong with teaching Creationism and/or Intelligent Design, but it has no place in a science class room. It's the domain of philosophy. And I say this as a philosopher, I've never been overly fond of science. So don't think I'm bashing anything here. quote:It's the "alongside" I have a problem with. As I said, this is something I've been wanting to do some research on (i.e. I don't have all my facts straight, so it's not like I'm claiming I know what's happening or anything), but from what I've heard, they want to teach Intelligent Design alongside evolution in science class. I don't know what's being taught in American schools these days. I don't even know what's being taught in Canadian schools these days. But when I was in high school, we learned about Evolution in science class and Creationism in religious studies. In neither case did someone say "This is the truth!". In both cases, the subjects were presented as theories, and beliefs held by some. If this is what is meant by "alongside", then I don't have the slightest problem with it. But from my understanding of the situation, that's not what's meant by "alongside". By what stretch of the imagination can "Intelligent Design" not be considered religion? Even if you try to distance it from the Christian faith, the fact remains that its central paradigm is one of a sentient, willful, creating force. In other words, a god, if not the God. Seriously, I'm very much curious about this. I'm not just saying these things to infer that you're wrong, I'm honestly asking the question (being a student of religion), wanting to understand the situation better. quote:Where do you live, and where are you from? I'm curious, your sig being in French... quote:Looking forward to you having time... ;) -------------------- "Take time to listen to what is said without words, to obey the law too subtle to be written, to worship the unnameable and to embrace the unformed." -- Lao Tzu Posts: 124 | Registered: Monday, September 26 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 18:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:The only difference is the name by which it's called. If a heterosexual couple are married in a registry office, it's still a marriage. If a homosexual couple have a commitment ceremony in a church, it's still a civil union. This is a stance which has very little to do with logic and a great deal to do with not offending potential voters who see marriage as a kind of exclusive country club that they want to keep homosexuals out of. Personally, I don't think it's the place of government to regulate marriage. I'm not a libertarian, but I'm very sympathetic to the libertarian view that a marriage should be seen as a private contract between two (or more) people under whatever terms they agree to. Originally, the tax benefits and so on that accompany marriage were effectively a way of bribing people to have children, but I don't think those benefits are either necessary or useful any more. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |