Politics and Beliefs
Pages
| Author | Topic: Politics and Beliefs |
|---|---|
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 21:58
Profile
Holy hyper hot-buttons, Nic! What were you thinking, man? Are you insane? ;) Any one of these questions should have been its own individual thread. I’m probably gonna catch some heavy flak for it, but I’m breaking my replies out into discrete threads of their own and anyone else can run with them or ignore them as they like. [Edit: Ephesos convinced me to reconsider.] For starters, let me say that I have problems with virtually any test or poll with multiple choice answers. They never seem to offer the kinds of choices for answers I actually wish to give, or I find exceptions to my answers I’d wish to qualify. I think one hugely important simple truth of life to keep in mind is that there are always more variables and possibilities in nearly any situation than we are able to think up ourselves. That said, obviously, throwing together any kind of controversial poll as we have here is going to provoke a lot of dialog. Politics. I agree with Ischi that laws (and politics) are not the solution to the world’s woes, and never can or will be. It’s a values issue at heart, and values come from a very internal, personal space. It’s in essence, a spiritual matter. If you really want to change the world, you have to change hearts from selfish focus to esteeming others more than the self. This requires a perspective and conviction that sees intrinsic and unconditional value in the human being. This is largely a one-by-one influence we can hope to exert on others to demonstrate and inspire such values. It works by slow degrees. The fable of the Sun vs. the Wind is a good analogy. There is tremendous power in a spirit of love, joy, peace, etc. when they are genuine in a person. People crave these very precious commodities in a world primarily operating through and out of deep-rooted fears, fear being the direct adversary to love and the basis of all tyranny. Genuine love sells itself and the rewards are great, even exponential in time, having the power to radiate out in a butterfly-effect that goes well beyond a solitary lifetime. I am convinced that the single best way anyone can hope to change the world over time is through the kind of children you ultimately send out into it. It’s often a patient and humble numbers game. If we give them something genuinely vital, powerful, compelling, real, and positive, it will multiply in generations for the same simple reason that smiles and laughter are contagious. Changing hearts and values cannot be enforced at gunpoint, which is why no law. politcal system, or tyranny will ever be effective at creating some new moral state in the world. Even the Hebrews, with their Old Testament full of moral law were perpetually unable to live by that law, imposed from the outside in. And then that most curious fellow Jesus came around to commit the unthinkable by doing away with external religious laws and said he was going to write laws on the fleshy tablets of hearts instead. This kind of liberty cannot be tolerated in a world ruled by religious laws and fear, so he had to die. Any law written on the heart from the inside out...the law of love...cannot be taken away by externals. It’s a simple and powerful principle almost entirely ignored or unseen by those who would hope to fix the world through enforcement. So, it’s a dirty job (politics) and someone gots to do it, but I say let the dead bury the dead and leave to Caesar what is Caesars. I have an understanding and accommodating personal responsibilty how to leave this world better than when I came into it which depends not at all what either the political or the religious are seeking to impose from without. They will forever continue to do so until they are swallowed up in number by a new kind of thinking and behaving. The problem with so many of these kinds of questions, to me, is that maybe we aren’t asking the right questions or we make the mistake of the either/or fallacy in proposing only so many possible solutions, when in reality, there may be a solution which lies in a whole new direction entirely. When people ask me if I am left or right, I like to say neither. I choose the vertical axis. I like to rise up above the two-dimensional thinking of left—right limited choices. We have three dimensions to work with (at the very least) and when you step up above the political plane, you can have a new perspective with new possible solutions entirely. [ Friday, October 07, 2005 23:52: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- [Insert Signature Here] Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 22:05
Profile
Homepage
quote:Please, don't that'll just make things even more complicated, because there will be multiple discussions about the same topic in different threads. quote:I've always liked the idea of a third direction on the spectrum. Very nice point. As for the rest of that post, well... wow. I agree completely about the politics part, and mostly about the nature of the poll. (applauds) -------------------- 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 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 22:18
Profile
1. Moderate. All political parties and candidates are equally loathed. 2. Not much of a war if you ask me. The most powerful country in the world has spent over three years trying to muck out some patriotic Iraqi citizens, and now others are assisting them. Gee, I feel real proud of our military might now. Kinda like if Don Knotts was asked to coach the New England Patriots (raw talent on the ground only gets you so far). 3. Abortion is legal. Condoms break. If abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will have abortions. Also, it might be wise, given human nature as pointed out by others, to have mandatory random abortions. There are 11 plants in the western US that native Americans used for abortions. Just telling ya. 4. I'm not gay, so I don't actually think about gay marriage a whole lot. I find that the folks that think about it the most are gay, and they pretty much support it 100%. For them, it boils down to governmental benefits and rules. I've suggested before that marriage needs to be a contract between a church and 2 people, and a marriage license between a county and 2 people. It is actually none of my business what policy is held by a church, or a county in which I'm not a parishoner/resident, and it really isn't the business of other churches or governmental bodies. 5. Not equal. Is there really that much to debate when each definition is so radically different? IMHO, the introduction of ID feels a little desperate and forced, especially since it comes from christianity. Umm. The pope could just announce that Genesis was expressing time in a differnt manner, like as if a billion years was a day to their god. Wouldn't that fix the pesky 4000BC thing? Also, why is it so important to religion that the define the origin of man? Is that really the best way to focus your faith? Just asking. 6. Not in public schools, maybe in others. Again, not my business if a parochial school wishes to teach ID, creationism, sleight of hand, or reindeer herding techniques. 7. Lowered. Too many outfits are able to hire people for scut work by offering this carrot out to them. I say let the free market system work. Would you work at McDonalds for $2/hour? $3? Does it depend where you live and your expenses? Should some $2000 suit wearing Washington fatcats decide for you? We have enough worker safety laws to protect workers from unsafe conditions, now let's give the economy a chance to adjust wages to reality. 8. Sliding scale determined by the evil magic eight ball. Really. There is no fair system of taxation because someone always benefits more than another. Like me. US tax dollars pay my salary and I don't even work for the government. There is no one good answer for this one. 9. Sure, why not. After all companies are just a pile of paper describing what it hopes to accomplish. If you meant limits on the people in corporations, or RICO style limits, then yes, there need to be adequate checks and balances in place so that criminals acts do not happen under the guise of corporate policy. Not sure if less or more is correct, but it definitely needs to be different. 10. Umm. Huh? How about if y'all just left it alone for a while. Really. Everytime some well meaning outfit tries to help the "environment" it just gets screwed up even worse. Got weeds? Use herbicide. Got bugs? Use DDT. Got the picture? Now some places have been so radically changed that they can not be restored to natural function, and the tree huggers need to accept that. Hydro power dams really blow, but the likelihood of removal is so small it makes expenditure of resources for that effort a waste of money. Are you ticked off over pollution? Buy a hybrid car or put a solar panel on your roof. Number Eleven. Admit that as a human being you have limited resources and intelligence to understand the question, data, and possible outcomes to a vast array of problems. Admit that anything you do is very likely to fail at some level. Realize that the best you can do is limit the damage done by your time spent on this planet, and that the level of damage is directly proportional to your income, strength of conviction, and intelligence. *this message sponsored by that which is tetragrammaton* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 22:29
Profile
Homepage
quote:Please tell me you aren't being serious. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 22:34
Profile
quote:Please be more specific. There is serious and humor in the same answer. Also, I find the best case scenario for a discussion of personal beliefs is anger and dismissal. I'll happily clarify my opinion, but neither defend it nor expect anyone to adhere to it. *this message sponsored by ihop* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 22:45
Profile
Homepage
Nothing you wrote seems like a good reason to support legal abortion. Outlawing abortion means that people who get or perform abortions will be outlaws? Well, yeah. And? Mandatory random abortions would be abhorrent in many ways, but I'm pretty sure you can't have meant that. And I don't see how what the Native Americans did has any relevance to what we should do. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 22:45
Profile
All right, Ephesos, you talked me into it. I don't feel like getting beat up just now anyway. ;) Thanks for your kind words too. I think it's quite cool that people who came here because of a love of some silly and insanely fun computer games can also dig into many real issues of life—I hope with respect and with open-minds. On Abortion: I’m thinking perhaps we might concern ourselves less with what we feel we should legislate and enforce upon persons, but how as a society we wish to demonstrate amd promote our valuing of children. How much support do we really offer a pregnant woman in crisis? I don’t mean bureaucratically or financially primarily, as those things are largely soulless by themselves. A woman in crisis needs support far beyond those vital starting points. I especially mean socially, psychologically, emotionally, spiritually, and so forth. What sort of help and attitudes do we offer as acquaintances, friends, neighbors, employers, coworkers, and communities? What sort of unspoken stigmas might we place upon such persons? They are felt, and they do damage. If sufficient numbers of people in a society demonstrate a genuine, personal loving and caring attitude rather than a divisive and condemning one towards those who feel they can’t see a baby through to term, the long-term results will be remarkable. If many people who cherish life to the degree they profess put their time and money where their mouths are—aiding and supporting would-be mothers, offering to provide for or adopt unwanted babies, giving personal resources to nurture and support the troubled pregnant, what would shift? Everything is interconnected. Many diverse causes of unwanted pregnancy are also potentially countered and resolved the more nurturing we are of one another across the board over time. It’s an underlying remedy for many similar “issues”, I believe. If we better learn to connect and serve each other, while shifting from our self-serving, individualistic, materialistic preoccupations (I am plenty guilty myself), I believe we will surely see less drug use, fewer runaways, fewer gangs, and fewer unwanted pregnancies over time. More women might carry babies to term knowing that loving people are offering support needed to get there as well as someone to adopt the baby if it is unwanted. Maybe the underlying truth is many would rather condemn one life than be troubled to support another. When people feel safe, loved, essential, noticed, relevant, and looked after to a sufficient degree, behavior changes from within dramatically. It’s a very simple and powerful principle, but it requires a high degree of personal accountability in the world. External law and legislation can only lop off the tops of weeds, but never get at the roots of societal maladies. Make abortion legal—or illegal. Neither situation addresses the tragedy which is the life of the mother and the baby alike, both in need of support and valuing. Neither addresses the dangerous detachment we perpetuate based on our perverse degree of valuing individualism (self-centrism). We have chosen to value some mighty hollow things ultimately...largely being exactly that: THINGS—in addition to how we can cater to our own needs, desires, and ambitions. But the secret of life and fulfillment quite simply is found in relationships and in attachment. Rather than concerning ourselves with the laws of abortion which at best is holding fingers in a dam, why not demonstrate the value of life through consistent and self-sacrificing behavior and promoting the nurtuing of the unloved and unloveable? This means the life of the mother just as much as the child. For those who are Christian, their instruction is not to judge, but to serve and to love. This leaves no place for condemning or excluding (even just by attitude) a woman even if she does abort her baby, legally or otherwise. Ideally, we would be immediately concerned with, “What caused this woman to do this? What are we not doing as individuals and collectively to offer options, perspectives, support, and hope? Bottom line: It’s a lot easier to make our issues matters of law, religion, and politics, when in reality, it is we ourselves who have failed, we who are accountable, and we who have the power to remedy the malady. Rather than putting the power into the abstract collective hands of institutions which of themselves often have no real focus, perspective, or life, we can take the power into our own hands by affecting the lives of others and promoting that which truly nurtures life, one person at a time. Laws don’t fail us. We fail us. [ Friday, October 07, 2005 23:42: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- [Insert Signature Here] Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 23:14
Profile
quote:I wasn't aware that I was in a position to defend the current legal status of abortion in the USA. I though I was only asked how I felt about it (an opinion). The outlaw statement mirrors other comments, in that you can't force people to do things against their will. It mostly doesn't work, and when it does it has been called slavery. The idea of random abortions is not new. Infanticide is not new. They are legitimate methods of population control for isolated peoples dependent on an area of limited resources. There are no absolutes in morality, and like hemlines, attitudes on morals will shift over time. Why is it that a culture that existed for over 2000 years should not be important? What culture is important and why? Are their multiple cultures of importance or just one? I was merely pointing out two things. 1. Another culture had experience with the idea of abortion and had determined that several natural substances aided in that process. 2. Knowledge of the substances was not lost, and they could be used again if doctor aided abortions were outlawed. I have a very wide range of moral tenents, but the most basic is that I should never force my view of the world onto the unwilling. Education helps people make their own decisions. *this message sponsored by martin luther* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 23:40
Profile
Homepage
quote:We already have those. They're called miscarriages, and 70% of pregnancies end in them. :P quote:Well, no, because Genesis also lists the order in which things were created, and that order doesn't make much sense from a scientific perspective either. quote:Children rarely get to choose what school they attend, and this is something that's going to have a huge impact on the rest of their lives. There's a good case for some regulation of what schools can teach, even if they're not public schools. quote:Unless I'm misreading you, you seem to be saying that lowering the minimum wage will reduce the number of people who are employed in low-paying jobs, which strikes me as silly. -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
E Equals MC What!!!!
Member # 5491
|
written Friday, October 7 2005 23:53
Profile
Homepage
quote:So... outlawing murder when someone really wants to kill someone else is the same as slavery? Or did I miss something? quote:By that argument, does anything seperate abortion from randomly shooting people in the street? quote:All of these points are completely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is a good thing or not. quote:I'm pro-life. Had my mother decided to abort me, she would have been forcing her opinions onto me in a very definite way. :P Again, I haven't seen you say anything to differentiate abortion from murder. -------------------- Sex is easier than love. Posts: 1861 | Registered: Friday, February 11 2005 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 00:01
Profile
Silly? You wanna step outside and say that? I was looking at the question in terms of supply and demand within the workforce. Many people will work for gobs of money, and very few for a dime. If a company advertises a line cook job for $4 and gets no applicants, then they have to raise the offer. If someone will take that job for $4, why should the company get penalized? It is a free market, and no one is forced to take a job they don't want. And, I'm not aware of any argument that claims raising the minimum wage will reduce the number of people making minimum wage. Perhaps an economist should weigh in on the matter. Taking your comments out of order, besides miscarriages there is the biological miracle of teenage girls. And I'm not being pedophilic here. Many teenage girls (<16 or 17) are unable to conceive. I think there is some racial aspect to this data, but I did read that nature has built in this pregnancy blocker to protect viable females from pregnancy before they had fully developed the capability to give live birth. *shudder* Genesis must have been mistranslated then, or re-ordered to make a better read when translated to greek or english. In the USA, parents can choose to send their kids to any school they wish. There are catches, like being a resident, or having money, or having a differently capable child, or member of a church. It may be different than in Australia. Edit - I don't happen to believe that killing is categorically either good or bad. It is a cultural issue, as murder is defined as unlawful killing, and cultures define their own laws. Does pro-life mean you are against the taking of any life? Do you get to pick and chose which life is sacred? Cuz all these seem less absolute and more a matter of personal choice than anything else. *sponsorship has been withdrawn from this message* [ Saturday, October 08, 2005 00:08: Message edited by: Mournin' Salmon ] Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 00:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is easy to say when one isn't faced with the choice between a lousy job and not being able to feed one's family. There are some situations which are so inherently open to coercion that a fair contract can't exist in them; if you find a starving man lost in the desert and offer him food, water and a trip home on the condition that once he gets home he gives you everything he owns, I don't think it's fair for him to be held to his end of the bargain. quote:Parents choose. Children don't. That's the problem. There are, in my opinion, some choices which parents do not have a right to make on behalf of their children -- indoctrinating them in a particular religion, or sending them off to a school that will do the same, is one of them. [ Saturday, October 08, 2005 00:32: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 5886
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 02:43
Profile
Concerning the political spectrum: I have known for sometime now that this thing is a farce. It makes false distinctions where there are none. And why, in political discussions, should we separate ends from means? Often, the means affect the ends, in ways not forseen, far more than any initial intentions. Thus, why should we make any distinction between fascism and communism? Honestly! Communism implemented on a large population scale can only feasibly be implemented by aligning many facets of a society, leading to the usual Gestapo-type regulation. Communism as it is idealized does work well on a small scale, where everyone's goals are situationally-aligned. There are many possible axes/dimensions of a political spectrum based upon the many values a person can have. But given that politics is primarily about how governmental power is organized/distributed througout society, doesn't it make sense to organized it based upon how centralized the power is? So one end should be utter anarchy, the other Stalinist Russia/China/Third and Fourth Reichs (hopefully only Third :D ). Say that the anarchy side is the left, and the fascist side is the right. I would lean a bit left of center I guess. I would describe many of my political beliefs as libertarian. Though regulation is needed in many cases. On the war: I can't say that I support the war, otherwise I would have to enlist. Even if the war is actually about oil (though I don't see how we have accomplished that goal either, there are other factors, like *oil refineries :mad: *), I am not going to put my physical/mental well being at risk on such frivolty. If the Iraqi people want democracy, rationality, and a freedom from the domination of tedious neurotic religion, they can earn it for themselves. If they earn it, they will appreciate it more. The problem is, if we let things go on their own, it would be several hundred years before any significant change occurs. But my life is too valuable to die for such a cause. How can one expect to cure neuroticism with violence? Unless of course the killing is so quick and efficient that the *Insert plural animal here, something furry* do not have time to spread the mental disease? By "mental disease" and neurosis, I specifically mean their rationalization that people should horribly die because they do not hold the same religious beliefs. People whom they call "infidels" and "polytheists." Which is kind of ironic, because most people in the world are monotheists. On abortion: Yes, we could go back and forth on this issue for ages. I am not Christian, but I do, as a living creature, naturally value life. Though I agree with Synergy67's general philosophy, specifically about support and compassion for our fellow humans, I do not think it applies here. People choose to have sex. Certainly, it can often be a strong physical desire. But it is not like eating, drinking and breathing. It is not in that sense, a need. Therefore, given that education about sex has been provided properly (this is extremely important), no one has the excuse to be surprised that they become pregnant after having sex, even with all of the standard protections. People need to be prepared for it, and stop victimizing themselves and blaming society on their own problems, which result from their own choices. If we were to lean on each other to the extent Synergy67 said, no one would take responsibility for their actions, and society would cease to function without coercion. I am willing to help someone out when they have demonstrated a strong desire to help themselves. Don't blame society, and certainly don't blame the unborn (I did not get the latter from your post Synergy67). Another point: We all keep dancing about the merits/legality of abortion itself, but why not just keep it legal? Except that subsidization for it from all levels of government should be revoked. I do not want my hard-earned tax dollars spent in that way. Of course there are the special cases where a woman has been raped, or her life is in danger. I don't mind subsidies for these cases. But there should be no subsidies for those who cannot take responsibility for their actions. Also, I think that there should be some way, if a woman does choose to have an abortion, to make the father of the child responsible for an equal share of the cost of the abortion. But then another, very large, problem arises. What if the father does not want to pay because he wants to keep the child? Or vice versa? Potentially a very large problem, but either way, the father should be helping out as well. And if the mother and father are minors, some other large issues arise. I don't pretend to have all of the answers here, but society should not be bearing the cost. Synergy67 does make a point that everything is interconnected. I have to agree with this, and perhaps, even if the monetary cost was isolated to just a few of the people involved, society ends up bearing that cost in other ways. But the point is that we cannot allow these people to feel that what they have done is ok. They have irresponsibly used their sexual faculty and they must understand that they cannot shove off their problems to others. [ Saturday, October 08, 2005 03:01: Message edited by: Aranea Hirsuta ] -------------------- My friend! Do not fear the flames of the demonic legion! Let the flames incinerate your weakness, strip away all neuroses, and transform you into a newly-forged brazen GOD! Then you will show the subhuman supplicants the true meaning of domination and the proper use of POWER! --Daemon Pavidum Posts: 52 | Registered: Friday, June 3 2005 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 04:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:It occurs to me that one thing nearly everyone with an interest in politics agrees on is that power of any kind is dangerous and nobody can really be trusted with much of it. The only real disagreement is on which kinds of power are least harmful; after all, an unregulated corporation can develop political and economic power comparable in scale to that of a government, and is arguably more likely to abuse that power for its own ends. quote:Women with unwanted pregnancies are just as much a part of society as anyone else. The question isn't whether society should bear the cost; it's which part of society should bear the cost. quote:Most unwanted pregnancies occur in people who have at least been attempting to use contraception. Contraceptive methods aren't perfect and neither are the people who use them. It would seem that some sympathy for their position is not unjustified. After all, we don't abandon people who engage in other behaviours that result in their needing medical assistance later on. Smokers who develop lung cancer are still entitled to the same degree of health care as any other member of the population, and so are obese people who develop heart disease. And before you suggest that these groups should be cut off from publicly-funded medical treatment too, consider that practically everyone engages at least some risky behaviours. For example, I'm studying to be a biologist. In the course of my career I'm likely to spend a fair amount of time working with radiation and carcinogenic chemicals, increasing my risk of developing various forms of cancer. Suppose I develop cancer later in life. Since I have voluntarily engaged in a behaviour which is known to carry certain risks, should my entitlement to public funding for my treatment be reduced by an amount corresponding to that increased risk? See, that's why we have publicly-funded health care in the first place; everyone takes risks, but only some people suffer the adverse effects of those risks. Not everyone who forgets to take a contraceptive pill gets pregnant, not everyone who smokes develops cancer, and not everyone who goes mountain climbing falls and breaks a leg, but some do, and it's only fair that the lucky ones should share the burden of the unlucky ones. [ Saturday, October 08, 2005 05:00: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- My BoE Page Bandwagons are fun! Roots Hunted! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 04:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:Overwhelming? Haven't heard of him in some time... -------------------- The Encyclopaedia Ermariana <-- Now a Wiki! "Polaris leers down from the black vault, winking hideously like an insane watching eye which strives to convey some strange message, yet recalls nothing save that it once had a message to convey." --- HP Lovecraft. "I single Aran out due to his nasty temperament, and his superior intellect." --- SupaNik Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 6292
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 06:29
Profile
Aranea H. said: "If we were to lean on each other to the extent Synergy67 said, no one would take responsibility for their actions...I am willing to help someone out when they have demonstrated a strong desire to help themselves." I think I’m with you more than it may appear. I neither believe in rewarding or enabling irresponsible and selfish behavior. The incalcitrant need to experience the inevitable consequences of extremely self-serving and uncaring choices. I also think it is necessary to see how even knowingly self-destructive behavior is pitiable and no less in need of attention, redress, and intervention. In many ways, it is more sorrowful and critical than deeds done in ignorance and suggests a very fatalistic and desperate place to be in. Sometimes tough love knows when to intervene in the behavior of those who aren’t asking for help. If we have a sense of accountability to others in our culture, we have the incentive and the mandate to do so. Every case requires its own evaluation by those with the wisdom and resources to address it. I do not believe in blanket applications of much of anything. I also do not believe that education of the facts about sexuality is sufficient to prevent sexual irresponsible behavior any more than facts prevent people from smoking, drinking, and eating at McDonalds. We’re swimming in information in this country, and we worship knowledge in the western world, but it has no power in and of itself despite the saying that knowledge is power. What I believe we are lacking are the deeper foundations which enable one to harness information from a place of security, support, and empowerment. It’s a hierarchy of needs issue. Emotionally crippled and socially-detached people who never knew good parental or sexual role models are not in any condition to make responsible and intellectual sexual choices based on the right information. They will often be operating on auto-pilot seeking out the fulfillment of much more primitive and basic needs. In lieu of having hope of fulfilling them, they may self medicate against the void. And ironically, sexual activity is one of those alleviating drugs for many as well as a means of seeking fulfillment. [ Saturday, October 08, 2005 06:34: Message edited by: Synergy67 ] -------------------- [Insert Signature Here] Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 10:49
Profile
Homepage
quote:Look at it this way: Is it easier to help pay for a woman's abortion or to help pay for society to raise an unwanted child in foster care for who-knows-how-many years? quote:I agree that the father should have to bear some of the cost, particularly when the two aren't married or in a relationship anymore. And I think that it's a bit unfair that the father's desire to have a child could force the mother to carry it to term (as I'm certain has happened in the past), so in those arguments I believe the mother should have the right to abort when she doesn't want the child. Of course, both parties' opinions should be consistent and well-thought-out, in order to avoid random bursts of emotion deciding the case. quote:Okay, interesting perspective, but I don't agree. Not all cases come from sexual irresponsibility, though some inevitably do. The people in question need to acknowledge their irresponsibility, but there are other ways to do this. Let them get an abortion, then let people guilt-trip them about their irresponsibility. That way, they learn a lesson but aren't emotionally/economically/physically damaged for the rest of their life. One moment of irresponsibility (or in the case of failed contraceptive measures, a moment of bad luck) should not lead to a lifetime of regrets. Hm... I apologize if I repeated anyone's remarks, but there's a lot to keep in mind with all of this, and my mind isn't keeping up all that well. -------------------- 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 |
|
Shock Trooper
Member # 1249
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 12:37
Profile
Homepage
10 topics at once? I don't have time to say even half of things that these brought to mind... 2. What do you think of the war in Iraq? I disagree, and fortunately "we" are not there (or at least if we are, it's not in the main media). But i think the war coalition should pull out. I can't come up with any "good" solution but the current foreign occupation being there seems to be the worst option. Who would control and supervise things and guarantee that the troops behave nicely towards the Iraqi population? And make sure that the Iraqis (or most of them) benefit economically? And make sure that they have real political independence? Etc. 7. Do you think the minimum wage should be raised? Yes... But there should also be more measures to make sure that the law is followed. 8. Who do you think should get tax cuts the most? My answer was the lowest 25 %, if there has to be a tax cut. However, I would rather raise taxes if they'd be used to build social services. (in almost any country) Posts: 259 | Registered: Saturday, June 1 2002 07:00 |
|
Triad Mage
Member # 7
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 12:51
Profile
Homepage
I'm one of the seven people (so far) that said that they'd rather give a tax cut to those in the lowest 25-50% than to those in the lowest 25%. My reasoning is that those in the lowest 25% pay virutally nothing in taxes anyway, and those in the lowest 25-50% pay quite a bit more that can sometimes cause real financial trouble, especially with a family of four or five. -------------------- "At times discretion should be thrown aside, and with the foolish we should play the fool." - Menander ==== Drakefyre's Demesne - Happy Happy Joy Joy desperance.net - We're Everywhere ==== You can take my Mac when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse! Posts: 9436 | Registered: Wednesday, September 19 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1468
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 13:58
Profile
Homepage
quote:Haven't you ever seen the movie Dogma? quote: quote:Church and State are not seperate by any means. The 10 commandments are everywhere in Washington D.C. And if I remember correctly, the Supreme Court opens with a prayer by a minister paid by the taxpayers. Creationism wasn't created to twist up Evolution. Creationism is just the belief that we were created by a higher being, and is not supposed to be affiliated with any particular religion. Until it's proven, Evolution is just a theory. Faith based upon evidence. -------------------- "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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 15:03
Profile
Homepage
quote:Let me clarify... church and state should remain separate until further notice. Come to think of it, why is that violated so consistently? -------------------- 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 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1468
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 15:23
Profile
Homepage
My theory on why it's violated so much is because most of the ideals that our government was created to protect were based upon the religious beliefs of our founding fathers, which were predominantly Christian. The seperation of church and state is to prevent the government from setting up an "official" religion. -------------------- "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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 20:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:Creationism has come to mean almost exclusively the anti-evolutionary doctrine of world creation by God in six days expressed in the Judeo-Christian Bible. Many other religions have their own creation myths, and they don't fall under the heading of creationism. Once again, there seems to be a great deal of confusion over scientific and colloquial theory. Evolution is an accepted "theory" because it is the best deduction of how a certain system works that we have. It can't be proven unless we witness macroevolution, which tends to happen on a timescale that is orders of magnitude out of the reach of practical studies. That aside, evolution is the theory that fits the facts as we know them and allows meaningful extrapolation. Unlike popular perception of the words, the difference between "theory" and "fact" isn't a difference at all. A theory is an explanation, nothing more and nothing less. If it can be proven, it may be considered an absolutely true and accurate theory, but it is still a theory. In that sense, intelligent design is also a theory, just not a scientifically valid theory: it cannot be tested, it permits no extrapolation. Even if it is true, the only response is to say, "Okay, so what?" —Alorael, who twitches reflexively whenever he sees the "just a theory" argument. Then he rants about it for a while. Then he appends a signature. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 20:58
Profile
quote:I imagine this makes you immensely popular at cocktail parties. I can (cartoon time Alex!) just imagine you sitting on the stairs waiting for the next idiot to say "I have a theory about..." so you can snipe 'em while mumbling something about how you'll show them a theory. Or something like that. *this message sponsored by sealy - providing firm support for more pleasant dreams* Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 1468
|
written Saturday, October 8 2005 21:56
Profile
Homepage
quote:Don't forget "while sipping skribbane." -------------------- "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 |