Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa")
Pages
| Author | Topic: Social Degradation and Religious Decay (Split from "Life on Europa") |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 18:59
Profile
I challenge Drew or anyone to present evidence that “people these days are generally better off financially.” Also I would like to be clearer on what he means by “quality of life” so that we can see whether or not I’m obtuse. BTW, you’re behind in the discussion, because we left off using “Christian” because of confusion and hurt feelings that may arise and have opted for “people who follow the Bible” and the degree to which they follow it. Animals are important, but not as important as humans. We’re both made by God, but humans are made in God’s image. We’re also made to rule them. That view is practical because it allows for killing and controlling of animals when it’s good for us (e.g. food clothing, protection, companionship), but does not allow for mistreatment or abuse of our authority over them. It also requires that we deal with them in wisdom, knowing that our well-being is linked to them. So when I said Jainism was impractical it was compared to what I consider a better way. Sorry in advance if anyone is offended by my view. ------------- You can’t judge another moral code if you assume that there is no absolute morality. If there is then you can judge. Other “senses” help, such as fairness and empathy. Let’s say you are a noble. Hammurabi grants you lighter judgment for a crime. That works out fine for you. In fact it’s all you know so you accept it. Now let’s say I tell you, “Imagine that you were not a noble. How would you feel about a law that discriminates by class? Did you know there is a law code that does not make such a distinction?” You can become enlightened and recognize that your culture’s code is not the most moral because it’s not the most fair. I agree about stable relationships, if by stable you mean healthy lifelong commitment. It provides a sense of security for both mates and any children. That’s effectively what marriage is though. The difference being that one is legally recognized as marriage and the other is not. A mate may wonder why you don’t want your union legally recognized as such as may children and others in the community. That would raise some doubt as to commitment. So legal marriage is better in that sense. Of course amicable divorce is better than a bitter one, but a preserved and healthy marriage is best. You mention that secular humanism does not allow hitting without good reason. The Bible does not either. You also mention discrimination as being excluded in secular humanism. Does that mean there can be only unisex bathrooms? Can we have a WNBA by secular humanist standards? Would babies be expected to earn a living and pay taxes? Why or why not? Good religion is never amoral. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 19:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:You still haven't explained why it's morally better for a moral code to be fair than to be unfair. Nor have you explained why empathy or intuition is an accurate way of judging morality. What if there is an absolute morality, but that absolute morality is "whatever course of action maximises human suffering is morally obligatory"? Such a morality might run counter to most people's moral intuitions, but can you prove that that means it is not in fact the true morality? [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 19:29: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 20:30
Profile
Homepage
quote:Says the Christian. There is no a priori reason why this should be true and Jainist beliefs should be false. In fact, if they're right your beliefs and mine are rather impractical, to say nothing of evil. quote:Thuryl's got this one, but you seem to be missing the obvious here. You can't judge because the existence of absolute morality in no way conveys access to absolute morality. We've only got our own personal moralities, and they're very obviously not universal (cf. any other culture of your choosing). quote:Let's say you're a peasant. You live under a legal system that gives no advantages to the wealthy and noble. Everyone's equal! Now let’s say I tell you, “Imagine that you were a noble. How would you feel about a law that discriminates by class? Did you know there is a law code that makes such a distinction?” You would be forced to concede that as a noble such a system would be desirable. What's the difference between this example and yours except our inclination towards egalitarianism? That impulse is certainly not universal, and it's very new as moral ideas go. quote:[/b] Again, why? Maybe the concept of marriage itself is damaging to society because it is a necessary precondition for broken marriages. Being able to drift into and out of relationships, to deepen them and then withdraw from them to whatever degree at whatever time, might be more stabilizing. There's no evidence for it. It's nearly impossible to collect any. But it's possible. And I maintain that relationships and partnerships can be as deep and meaningful without marriage as with it, but the dissolution of such relationships is rarely as acrimonious as the end of a marriage. Marriage leads to evil. quote:Secular humanism is not, in fact, a set code of ethics, so all I can do is throw out the answers I myself would give. Is there any good reason not to have unisex bathrooms? I'm all for them, personally. Sports by sex are an interesting problem. The fact of different physical abilities gives a justification, in a way, but not a strong one. To be honest, I don't care very much about athletic competition, with or without gender. Yes, babies are required to pay taxes. Also you are obligated to cease all thought or thought-like processes. More seriously, personal and societal responsibility to raise children makes turning them into fiscal assets wrong. quote:Good religion is, I think, an oxymoron. [Edit: Killed a tag.] —Alorael, who thinks you can get a good idea of what secular humanism leads to by looking at America or much of Europe. Yes, there's religious background there, but the Church and the churches aren't running the show and things are fine. Well, or not; you seem to deny it. Irreconciliable differences have already been cited. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 20:35: Message edited by: Subpar Prismatic Spray ] Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 21:46
Profile
Intuition can be a guide because morality is hardwired. The universality of laws against things like murder and theft are a testament to absoluteness. I would argue that the mosaic law will seem more moral to us because it is more moral. quote:I gave the reasons that convinced me. As I said, each one has to investigate and figure out what’s best. If Jehovah is real he’ll determine whether or not we chose correctly. If the Jainist diety is then the same goes for him. If the atheist is correct it only matters for a few more years after which we’ll become one with the stars or whatever. quote:That’s why I made a distiction between desirable and moral. I’m sure most thieves realize that theft is wrong, but they still desire to take your stuff. I would only choose a system favoring me if I put selfish interests above community. Egalitarianism is not a new idea, as I understand it. It’s a very prominent theme in the Bible. quote:Drifting in and out of relationships is the opposite of stable. I’m not following you here. quote:What distinguishes a marriage from a relationship or partnership? quote:You discriminating baby bigot! Let them make decisions for themselves like adults. Give the toddlers an opportunity. Maybe you could give them a chance to be in charge of the family. What’s so bad about cake and Fruit Loops® for dinner? Share authority. Why do you hate infants, Alo? Don’t try to control them because they’re smaller. You adult supremacists make me sick. quote:Seriously? Why? I do think there is some good to be found in America and Europe. Like I said, the world is not all bad. ------------ Synergy, I forgot to address this: Women are never treated like property in the same sense that cattle or land is. Jehovah is said to be a “husbandly owner” of his people. That does not mean he doesn’t treat them with the utmost love and kindness. In fact, husbands are told that they do not ‘exercise authority over their own bodies’ because their wives do. (1 Cor 7:4) Apparently this concept was not foreign to pre-Christian women since Rachel hired out Jacob’s "services" to Leah. Also Sarai arranged a marriage between her maidservant and Abram. (Gen 16:2, 3; 30:16) I think some of us may assume that women were just helpless victims of a harsh patriarchal system. That is far from true. Women have always greatly influenced culture. “The man is the head, but the woman is the neck. And she can turn the head any way she wants.” – My Big Fat Greek Wedding Maybe they influence it less in a rigid patriarchal environment, but the Bible is certainly not behind that. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 22:10
Profile
Homepage
quote:What have laws to do with morality? There are sound prudential reasons to outlaw murder and theft that don't require appealing to morality. Besides, even if one accepts that all humans are hardwired to believe that certain things are morally right, how does that prove that those things are in fact morally right? If we were hardwired to believe that the Earth was flat, would that make it flat? quote:Jains don't believe in a supreme being. I guess you think it's not important to learn about other religions when you're already convinced you have the truth. [ Wednesday, July 18, 2007 22:14: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
|
written Wednesday, July 18 2007 22:14
Profile
quote:Leah was Jacob's first legally married wife after he worked for seven years and was tricked by his father-in-law Laban. Rachel was his second wife. As was the custom in that area and most of the world, Jacob also had children with Leah's and Rachel's servants. Sarai (Sarah) had Abraham have a child, Ishmael, with her servant Hagar because she was childless and they were both getting old. Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00 |
|
Apprentice
Member # 8684
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 00:43
Profile
quote:You actually didn't look far enough into genesis to catch the reference about Rachel leasing Jacob to Leah. Gen 30:14-15 (I was lazy, so I only looked up NIV since it was most readily available). 14 During wheat harvest, Reuben went out into the fields and found some mandrake plants, which he brought to his mother Leah. Rachel said to Leah, "Please give me some of your son's mandrakes." 15 But she said to her, "Wasn't it enough that you took away my husband? Will you take my son's mandrakes too?" "Very well," Rachel said, "he can sleep with you tonight in return for your son's mandrakes." quote:As to Stillness' quote, I think you are taking that terribly out of context. The purpose of Paul stating that was to give a justification for NOT sleeping with multiple partners (although, I suppose it could be argued that it was against sleeping with UNMARRIED partners xD). Posts: 13 | Registered: Thursday, May 10 2007 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 04:26
Profile
quote:One of many reports from the U.S. Census. You really are being obtuse. quote:This assertion is completely backwards. You are judging other moral codes by what you assume is the correct moral code, which conveniently is your own moral code. If there is an absolute moral code, there doesn't seem to be any evidence that anyone knows what it is, because the world has never been at peace. The world is an inherently amoral place. Not a "bad" place, but just without morals. Morals are only useful to the extent that they help make life better, or to put it in Hobbes' terms, less "nasty, brutish and short." I think what you're describing as "absolute morality" really is just a representation of about 20,000 years of distilled anecdotal human experience. While this might be useful for comparison, it is hardly necessary for forming a judgment. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 04:47: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 05:05
Profile
quote:I think good [insert *anything* here] is an oxymoron, as everything has at least two sides. Well, expect the moebius strip. Anyways, I don't think there is a way to profit one being without harming another. Every silver lining has a dark cloud in the middle etc. Good and bad are always subjective. Our good is bound to be bad to someone or something else, somewhere in the universe. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 05:06: Message edited by: Frozen Feet ] -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 05:28
Profile
Morality 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Supposedly, laws are based on morality. Universal laws are an indication that certain morality is universal. I’m curious about your non-moral (based on the definition above) reason for theft and murder being illegal. quote:I think this whole question is beautiful even if “morally right” is redundant. It goes to my “the-Bible-makes-sense-to-me” argument. If we were hard-wired to believe in a flat Earth it would not. The evidence that we are programmed for certain morality harmonizes perfectly with the idea that we are made in the image of a loving Creator that wants what’s best for us. The Bible would be useless if it didn’t match up with reality and if the stuff it says to do didn’t work. I wouldn’t believe it. Also, I have and do research other religions including Jainism and am aware that some regard all life as sacred and worthy of preservation. I didn’t mean my comments to be taken as quotations from Jain holy scriptures. I only meant to make a point. If I was afraid or didn’t care to listen to other perspectives I wouldn’t be talking to you all. quote:I thought I was clear that I was speaking about world conditions. You mentioned Africa so I thought the point I’ve been making for the entire thread was understood. Besides, linking to 100+ page files concerning the past 50 years with no explanation is not really a way to make an argument about the past 100 years and what happened before. Lack of peace is not evidence against an absolute moral code. At the most it could be evidence that people are not applying it. Also, I’ve abandoned my moral code to match one I saw as superior. When I’m presented with differing codes I examine them based off which one seems more just, reasonable, and loving. quote:I lazily made my point because I was taking Synergy’s knowledge for granted. I quoted it to make it clear that in Christian thought a man has no choice but to answer to his wife, in this case her sexual demands. This was to counter his assertion that the Bible has women treated like property and is anti-woman. This scripture applies the same rule to husbands as to wives - making it clear thet they are both "owned" by one another. I agree about the purpose of the scripture though. It’s anti fornication. It’s also pro one-woman-one-man. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:04
Profile
Homepage
quote:That is not what one would call a particularly enlightening definition, now is it? As far as I'm concerned, "morality" is a term so ill-defined as to be meaningless, and whenever one tries to pin its meaning down one ends up with a concept for which there is already another perfectly good English word, thus making it redundant. quote:Says who? Laws are based on nothing more or less than the will of those who make them, and that will can be influenced by a variety of factors. quote:Practically everyone has a desire to not be murdered which outweighs their desire to commit murder. In fact, their desire to not be murdered is strong enough that they band together with other people who do not wish to be murdered, make mutual agreements not to murder each other and set members of the community the task of enforcing these agreements. Thus, laws against murder are made. What has morality to do with any of this? quote:So, wait, the fact that we're aware that we generally stand to lose more from being murdered than we gain from committing murder is evidence of the existence of God? Um. quote:But we are hardwired to believe in a flat Earth. Didn't you find it natural to assume that the Earth was flat and stationary before you were first taught that it was round and moving? [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 06:24: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4248
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:08
Profile
To answer Thuryl's question, I think that "desire not to be murdered" gives birth to, or actually is, what we commonly call morality. -------------------- I have nothing more to do in this world, so I can go & pester the inhabitants of the next one with a pure concscience. Posts: 617 | Registered: Tuesday, April 13 2004 07:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:14
Profile
Homepage
quote:We already have a word for self-preservation. We don't need another one. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 06:16: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:19
Profile
Are we talking about the whole world? You seem to be most concerned with a decline in morality and cultural decay within the U.S., is that not so? Well, I think the fact that per capita income in real dollars (that is to say, adjusted for inflation) has increased significantly over the past fifty years pretty well illustrates my point. I'm not going to waste my time dredging up figures for the rest of the world or the 50 years prior to that report just to satisfy your obtuseness (though they exist in both cases), as unwilling as you may be to believe that things got better after the Great Depression, or that fewer people proportionately in the world are starving these days, which I think represents a pretty significant increase in the quality of life. My point in discussing Zimbabwe was to demonstrate how behavior depended more on financial wherewithal than any moral decline. Also, it's pretty apparent that the current state of the Zimbabwan economy is not representative of the world norm. Every time we pin you down, you change the frame of the debate. Dodge, dip, duck, dive, and dodge all you want, it doesn't change the fact that your assertions are pretty baseless. Not all assertions are equal. Some are more credible than others. EDIT: We do have a word for self-preservation, but that's the point where morality starts: when we agree to assign "not being murdered" the value of "good," and "being murdered" the value of "bad." [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 06:30: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:33
Profile
Homepage
To put the common objection in this thread another way, Stillness's argument appears to be that we have a built-in sense of morality that agrees with some of the broader concepts of his brand of Christian morality. This may be so, but the very concepts that are generally agreed upon are the very same concepts that are not unique to his form of Christianity. One could just as easily derive those concepts from god-independent social contract theory (the "desire not to be murdered" that has cropped up). The values that one can't get from the social contract (or from Buddhism or Islam or just about any other religion), the ones that are unique to Stillness's Christianity, are the same values that people who aren't Stillness object to, because they don't feel right — we're not "hard-wired" to accept them. The fact that some tenets of morality are almost universal does not show that any particular instance of those tenets (e.g. Stillness's Christianity) is more reliable than any others, because then we have to accept that all the other instances of those tenets (e.g. social contract theory, Hinduism) are also more reliable. Thus, providing the universality of some moral concepts as evidence does not justify his claim that his interpretation of Christianity has it right. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 06:45: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. 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 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:42
Profile
Or that Christianity necessarily has it right, or Islam, or Hinduism, etc. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:51
Profile
The definition makes perfect sense to me. It's not really that complex. Your understanding of morality doesn't really match up with reality. People don't refrain from killing simply because they don't want to be killed or they fear the authorities. I think that plays a role, but love, empathy, and value for life are all involved as well. All these can be overcome to actually commit murder because we aren't driven by instinct. When a person does though, this can leave them with a scarred conscience. Your theory doesn't explain this well. quote:Stillness: " If you start talking about the past century then the difference is glaring...In the past century more blood has been shed in wars than in the 1900 years prior to that...What happened in the last century was unique...we had two world wars...Darwinistic thought, which teaches competition and advantage over others translating into survival and prosperity, heavily influenced the governments that were based off of Marx... I’m not talking about the fact that I can drink from any water fountain I please by law in this pocket of the globe. I’m talking about bad human relations in practice, the breakdown of the family unit, the mental and physical problems caused by extra/premarital sex, poverty, human suffering, etc. If the world was a better place I’d be with you... Half of the population lives on less than 2 bucks a day." These are quotes from me without me even making it halfway through the second page of this thread. There was some discussion about the western world and the U.S., but the point I was making concerned the world and the past 100 years. You may think I'm being obtuse, but it's not because I don't know what the thread is about. Interestingly I hear a lot about the increasing cost of health care, education, food, etc. I also hear much about the decline of the middle class and the increasing need for two incomes in the U.S. So I was actually sorta interested in your point. Oh well, I'll just disregard it as baseless. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 06:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:In fact, any attempt to prove that some text is divinely revealed based on the claim that the advice given in it works is self-refuting: if a way of living works, then there's no need to find any justification for the fact that people practice it beyond the bare fact that it works. People in the aggregate will tend to find ways of living that are conducive to survival and abandon ways that aren't, if only because the ones who do the opposite are less likely to survive. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 06:55: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 07:00
Profile
Homepage
quote:People will tend to try to make agreements not to commit murder with the kind of person who seems likely to uphold those agreements, which means someone who appears to be the kind of person who wouldn't commit murder. The best way to appear to be the kind of person who wouldn't commit murder is to actually be the kind of person who wouldn't commit murder. All of that love and empathy stuff tends to help with that. quote:It's funny how guilt is so often directly proportional to the perceived likelihood of getting caught. Show me someone who felt guilty about something while being 100% sure he or she would never suffer any adverse consequences for it and I'll show you a liar. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 07:03: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 07:11
Profile
quote:Quoted for truth of the matter asserted. I'm out. Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 08:26
Profile
Dang. I get get back from a day of tuna fishing to find this morass. In conclusion, the dictionary definitions are written by people with morals and agendas. The irony is that we may find when/if there is a judgment day that the murderers, embezzlers, and thieves are all awarded everlasting joy and harmony in Nirvana, and the do-goodies who wasted their lives away hoping to not offend or affect will in fact spend their personal eternity in torment for having wasted every second of opportunity on the corporeal space. But that is the funny thing about morality. It boils down to being an incredibly convenient, yet equally useless measurement of action. :) Edit : Premature... [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 08:29: Message edited by: Jumpin' Sarcasmon ] -------------------- WWtNSD? Synergy - "I don't get it." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 09:43
Profile
Let's say a person gets caught and everyone he hurt forgives him. By your theory he should no longer feel guilty, right? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 09:52
Profile
Homepage
quote:Can you ever really be sure that you've been completely forgiven? Besides, even if you got away with it this time, what about the next time you do it? Someone who survives a plane crash with no injuries can still become afraid of flying because of the experience. [ Thursday, July 19, 2007 09:53: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 09:54
Profile
Homepage
quote:You don't appear to know a damn thing about social contract theory, so you might want to hold back on talking about what it does and doesn't explain before you make generalizations about it. Human psychology evolved while humans were social creatures. The necessity of social interaction places certain constraints on human psychology, and these constraints led to humans having consciences that work the way that they do. But again, whether people do have some basic moral code "hard-wired" or not is irrelevant, because people definitely do not have a complete set of your idea of Christian values hard-wired. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. 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 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Thursday, July 19 2007 11:32
Profile
quote:So your theory is not that a guilty conscience is “directly proportional to the perceived likelihood of getting caught” anymore? Now it’s based on worry about forgiveness and what will happen if you do the same stupid thing again? I really don’t have an argument if you say biblical morals are good because people who use them succeed and pass them. I do disagree that it’s not good to figure out why a system works. I also don’t have an argument with other religions having some good to them. That was my argument from the beginning. I wasn’t really arguing that I have the right religion. ---------- Kel, I appreciate your passion, but calm down. You’re arguing against things I’m not even saying. Either Thuryl is not explaining well or he’s explaining well and the theory doesn’t make sense to me. I never said Christian values are hard-wired. I said absolute morality is. What evidence is there that human psychology evolved? Or is it just assumed that it evolved like everything evolved? If it is I guess we can’t really debate that subject. It’s unfortunate that that’s banned. It mars an otherwise intellectually free forum. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |