Stem-Cells, degenerate Gay Lesbo rights, Abortion, Janet Jackson's boob..what's the problem ??

POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Sunday, December 1, 2024 16:44
VIEWED: 31108
PAGE 16 of 20

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, January 17, 2005 6:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
We are in a thread talking about certain things. One of them being gay marriage. So, when you say and make certain statements they take on meaning in that context. You can't get around this, it's called speaking English.

Indeed. And considering the frequency with which you have misinterpreted my comments, one is left with the conclusion that you are either intentionally inventing strawman fallacies or you are having trouble with the language. I don’t know which, and I don’t care. I’ll leave that up to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
So, you have said that gays are promiscuous, or at least have used it in your agruments towards the end that you seek. This coupled with your "statistics" is quite telling.

If you don't want people to come to wrong conclusions then don't say such things or be clear! Because it is clear that you haven't been clear throughout this thread.

I never said that I didn’t say that, and you can’t show where I did. I’ve been very clear. Some gays are promiscuous. Are you going to deny this? This is, once again, yet another strawman.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
But no, you haven't made your case well. Given the mass amounts of misunderstanding that you claim that is involved here, contradict this entirely. You really are self contradictory, and the sad thing is that you don't seem to realize it

So I’m responsible for your intentional misrepresentation of my arguments? I think not. I have made my case well; you have failed to produce a substantive argument against my points. Instead you have restated my argument to something that I didn’t say and then claimed that invented argument is wrong, but that was never my argument to begin with. Time after time, you have taken my words out of context, misrepresented my argument or simply ignored anything that I’ve said that didn’t support your preconceptions. That’s got nothing to do with the clarity of my words; that’s decision you make. Personally, I think you are a victim of your own insincerity. I think you have been misrepresenting my argument for so long now, that you’ve confused yourself. At this point, I’m not completely sure that you even know what you’re arguing. I don’t think that you know what my point is, and now you find yourself in the position of trying to invent a new strawman for an argue that you can’t remember, so you keep asking the same question over and over again, hoping that I’ll give you a hint of what you’re supposed to be arguing against.

And it’s starting to get ridiculous, Vizzini.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Since this discussion has everything to do with gay marriage, and I've at least never strayed from that discussion, you'll have to inform me and others, how any of this (HIV, promiscuous behavour, etc) has anything to do with if gays are allowed to marry or not. Or if the HIV thing wasn't to produce the result that gays are promiscuous, please tell us what your point actually is, because it is rather elusive.

The HIV angle was a tangent. I didn’t bring it up. That has nothing to do with my initial argument.
The promiscuity issue has already been explained; many times. I don’t feel the need to go over it again, because you’ve confused yourself with your own strawman arguments. You should go back and reread my posts, and this time, do so fairly and sincerely.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
It'd also be good if you could go back and answer the landslide of questions that you've completely ignored along the way.

I answer pertinent question posed in an intelligent manner, but I reserve the right not to respond to strawman attempts.

GLOWYRM

Monday, January 17, 2005 2:34 PM

Quote:

I think the bible is pretty clear on each of those issues. But Jefferson is wrong. Common law goes back centuries and often finds its origins is the very Christianity Jefferson is talking about. Even throwing the bible aside the pre-1800 common law that Jefferson is talking about would specifically prohibit abortion, medical experimentation at the expense of life, homosexuality, and lewd conduct.

although the common laws of every country i can think of are based on one religion or another (mainly anglo-christian in the western world)there is one solid and enswerving belief that the majority of these laws are standing upon... it is the moral belief that man is superior (regardless of sex, age race creed or religion) to all the beasts of the world.

the theory that common law and religion should not be seen in the same house eg polititians preaching religion and/or pastors/ reverands/ padres/ etc delivering sermons of politics is one upheld by many good and intelegent people.

werent you ever told you should not discuss religion sex or politics at a dinner party?

by the constitution of the united states of america people are guaranteed religios freedom, to worship or not worship as they each see fit. when you bring in a law that contravenes this constitutional right you are in effect marrying politics and religion.

here is a purely fictional example...

mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?

in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.

the law does not state "you must not kill" because you will go to hell, or it is against the religion of the founding fathers, it states that "you must not kill" because then if someone tries to kill you you cant do anything about it. and if everyone went around killing everyone else then there would be no-one left.
thus common law becomes "common sense"

if you take the whole legal system and melt it down, yes most laws are based on biblical precept (can be found in the ten commandments) however, it is not illegal (as far as i know) to commit adultery. it gives grounds for divorce but is not in itself an illegal action.

and while we are talking of laws, murder and all that jazz, why dont you grab the Oxford English Dictionary and look up the word "TERRORIST" and the phrase "TERRORIST ACTIONS" most all the dictionaries i have looked in have said the same thing. that a terrorist(s) is defined as 'a person or group of people who seek to hold down others using threats of terror or terrifying actions.' does this sound like the same person that declared a "war on terror"???

in some states of AUSTRALIA it is still illegal to :walk on the right side of a sidewalk ;spit in public;attempt to commit suicide (a successfull suicide however can not be charged with the offence)

and now for the truth about WHY the law and religion should not interact.

Several Years ago a young girl in Irland was abducted, gang raped, beaten and left for dead. when her parents found out she was prgnant, they applied for a special licence to have an abortion performed on their daughter. the courts not only rejected the application but took out an injunction AGAINST the parents to prevent them from taking their daughter to England to have the abortion performed legaly.

the worst part about this case is that the girl was only 14 years old, and mentaly handicapped (she has downs syndrome) prior to the beating. she was FORCED BY THE LAW to not only undergo the cruelty of an unplanned and very unwanted pregnancy, but also deliver the baby (which i believe was stillborn). the laws in Ireland regarding Abortions HAVE NOT CHANGED . they were written at a time when Catholocism was at its peak, and although many have tried to have them changed, there is little or no hope for even a small a

REEQUEEN

Monday, January 17, 2005 8:23 PM

Hey, Sigma. Read this yesterday, but had already spent too much time arguing about copyright issues with someone on the Prospero board. But you did give me lots to think about, so thank you.

Quote:
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?

Yeah, just slightly. He's not considering the other vectors, either. He just wants us to believe that gay sex is what spreads AIDS, no matter age, gender, orientation, or practice.

Quote:
To a certain extent we all have one. I for instance will never wish to go around killing people for no good reason. This is something that I won't change for anyone or anything (save effects from nerve gas, etc ). But aside from these things that I would think they are quite common "beliefs". I gather that I'm pretty open to new not killing indiscriminantly ideas, and I assume that you're the same way.

Well, I like to think of my "black box" as an intricately carved ebony chest, lined in purple velvet, because that's just the kind of girl I am. The stuff I keep in there: I won't kill or fight, unless my life or the lives of other people (most importantly my family) are at stake; every single person is precious, no matter how stupid I think one is, or how idiotic one behaves - that's just entertainment value; evolutionary theory will always beat out creationism, no matter how many permutations the theory undergoes; rumour-mongering is an art-form; nobody has the right to dictate the actions of other people - if it's not hurting anyone, it's no one's business; Napoleon Dynamite and Shaun of the Dead are brilliant movies.

There's more, but I want to stop before boredom ensues.

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Right now it's Sunday morning, and I'm entering the Long, Dark, Teatime of the Soul. Just about to go see how many baths I can usefully take....

/Hitchhiker's Guide reference.

Quote:
Which book is that from? Is it actually the first one? If so I don't remember that. I've just started the second.

It may be the second one, but I am not entirely sure (it's been a while since I've read them. Salmon of Doubt really put me off Douglas Adams for a while). All I know is that the Long Dark Teatime of the Soul encapsulates all I feel about Sundays. Have always felt about Sundays, really. And Tuesdays, incidentally.

"You mean they have the internet on computers now?" Homer

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, January 17, 2005 11:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ReeQueen:

Quote:
He included children < 13. First off the basic assumption here is that the population is sexually active. Otherwise how would they have the chance at having male-male sex right? So, basically Finn is saying that approximatly 4% of children < 13 are having gay male sex. Sounds rather wrong doesn't it?

Yeah, just slightly. He's not considering the other vectors, either. He just wants us to believe that gay sex is what spreads AIDS, no matter age, gender, orientation, or practice.

1. Actually I’m assuming that a certain number of individuals out of the population of gay people will contract AIDS in a given year. The number of children is irrelevant unless you are interested in a specific probability for gay adults. Because I’m only interested in comparing this to the probably of the heterosexual community to contract AIDS, I’m not interested in the specific probably of gay adults (which would be LARGER because of the smaller population.) Since the number of children can be assumed to be equally represented in both populations, they fall out of the ratio. And have no effect on the final number. Sigma should know this if he knew as much about mathematics as he claims. I challenge you to do the math.

2. Gay sex is the principal means by which AIDS is spread. That is a fact. I’m sorry if that impinges on your preconceptions, but if you don’t like that, you need to complain to the CDC. It’s their numbers, not mine, that bare this out. I'm just the messenger.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:
mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?

in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.

I’d like to know how you arrive at this conclusion.

HERO

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:

by the constitution of the united states of america people are guaranteed religios freedom, to worship or not worship as they each see fit. when you bring in a law that contravenes this constitutional right you are in effect marrying politics and religion.

This is not true. The Supreme Court has interpreted many restrictions on religious freedom. A good example is ritual animal sacrifice. Its fundamental to an otherwise legitimate and recognized religion, yet illegal. There is also poligamy, that Atlanta child spanking church, and so on. The issue is whether a compelling govt interest is served by the law, whether the restriction is narrowly tailored to be the least intrusive possible, and where there is no viable alternative.

Quote:

here is a purely fictional example...

mr j goes out and stabs his neighbor mr k to death. there is no provocation, and mr j makes a statement to his laywer that he is "fulfilling a religious obligation" can he therefore be charged with murder?

in my opinion if he could prove the religious context and demonstrate that the religion he follows is soundly based he should not , because of the constitution.

The state's interest in maintaining order and protecting the lives of its citizens in the interest. Banning religious killings is the only alternative. The law is narrowly tailored to apply to all homicides, yet let other forms of religious expression remain.

Quote:

"TERRORIST" and the phrase "TERRORIST ACTIONS" most all the dictionaries i have looked in have said the same thing. that a terrorist(s) is defined as 'a person or group of people who seek to hold down others using threats of terror or terrifying actions.' does this sound like the same person that declared a "war on terror"???

Try looking up "WAR":

• noun 1) a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2) a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

That sounds like what Bush is doing. However to use your example. A terrorist is a person or group that seeks to hold down others using threats of terror. The President in his role as warmaker is seeking to kill or deter terrorists by using military action. There is a difference, unless you hate Bush. A lot of people hate Bush. They prefer terrorists, oil kickbacks, and French cooking. I'm not going to say they are wrong to think that way, I do however think they should be killed by the terrorists, political corruption, and old European indifferance and self-interest they seem to prefer. But don't worry. Bush wont let that happen. When a terrorist blows up your building or a giant wave comes calling, America will be there, faster and with a whole lot more then the rest of the world...combined.

Quote:

in some states of AUSTRALIA it is still illegal to :walk on the right side of a sidewalk ;spit in public;attempt to commit suicide (a successfull suicide however can not be charged with the offence)

In Pennsylvania you can't fish from horseback. They're called "blue laws" and every now and then a whole bunch of them get tossed out.

Quote:

and now for the truth about WHY the law and religion should not interact.

Blah, blah, blah gang raped, blah, blah pregnant, blah, blah abortion, blah, blah she was FORCED BY THE LAW to not only undergo the cruelty of an unplanned and very unwanted pregnancy, but also deliver the baby (which i believe was stillborn).

Is this really a religious issue? Yes. Can this issue be divorced from religion? No. The question boils down to the fundamental question of when life begins. We don't need to argue that. Some say conception, some say birth, most seem to say its somewhere in between.

In the US, Roe v. Wade adopted the third option and argued that the rights of the state to intercede and protect the child mature at viability, which they base on the best science of the time. While I do not ag

GLOWYRM

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:05 AM

Quote:

Try looking up "WAR":

• noun 1) a state of armed conflict between different nations, states, or armed groups. 2) a sustained contest between rivals or campaign against something undesirable: a war on drugs.

That sounds like what Bush is doing. However to use your example. A terrorist is a person or group that seeks to hold down others using threats of terror. The President in his role as warmaker is seeking to kill or deter terrorists by using military action. There is a difference...

here is the clincher on the word 'war' "armed conflict". since when are unarmed children, newborn babies, bed ridden seniors etc considdered to be combattants in "armed conflict"? or indeed "in armed groups". since when is a child, a mother or grandparent who does not own or have access to firearms a threat to anyone? the war is against those who are armed, but exactly WHO instigated this war? i dont hate GWB, i couldnt give a stuff about oil kickbacks and i dislike french cooking yet fundamentaly, i still assert that by definition GWB is a terrorist.

show me the evidence that iraq, as a nation, was the instigator of this so called war and i may have to change my view. after all NOBODY has all the evidence, NOBODY has all the factsand sadly there is no right or wrong answer when it comes to war.

"glowyrm is getting old"

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:53 AM

Fundamentally, I assert that you are by definition ignorant. At least your post would seem to suggest that.

The US is not waging war against "unarmed children, newborn babies, [ and ] bed ridden(sic) seniors." This is a figment of your imagination and a chronic example of extreme ignorance and anti-American ideology. It is complete lunacy to claim that the US is waging war against "newborn babies" and "bed ridden(sic) seniors," regardless of one's opinion of the current conflict in Iraq. When was the last time we launched one of those baby seeking missiles designed to target those "newborn babies?"

HERO

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
When was the last time we launched one of those baby seeking missiles designed to target those "newborn babies?"

That started with "Roe v. Wade". The liberals oppose the death of babies in war. I agree. They condone the death of babies in the womb. I disagree.

Still its funny to think of a HummVee mounted NOW missles sitting outside Planned Parenthood centers out to kill unwanted babies. Funny in that tragic vaccum cleaner approach to contraception sort of way.

H

HERO

Wednesday, January 19, 2005 7:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by glowyrm:
show me the evidence that iraq, as a nation, was the instigator of this so called war and i may have to change my view.

August, 1990- Iraq invades Kuwait
January, 1991- US Coalition attacks Iraq to liberate Kuwait
Febuary, 1991- Iraq agrees to cease fire. Terms, we stop kicking Iraqi ass. Iraq returns Kuwaiti civilian prisoners (not done), returns Kuwaiti property (not done), agrees to a UN monitored no-fly zone (not done), agrees to destroy and account for all WMDs (not done, destroy...maybe, account for...no), etc, etc.

So argument 1, the original Gulf War cease fire is null and void due to failure of Iraq to abide by agreement. In other words...game on.

June, 1993- Iraqi plot to kill former President Bush.

December, 1998-2003- Iraq fires on US and British planes in no-fly-zone on almost daily basis.

So argument 2, acts of war committed against the United States justify the military conflict. In other words...they took a couple swings at us.

April 14, 1995- Oil for food program begins.

So argument 3, Iraq uses largest financial scandal in history to funnel money into its efforts to spilt the western alliance with bribes to Russian, German, and French diplomats including high ranking members of the governments of those nations. They also succeeded in introducing an unprecedented amount of political corruption into the world's premire international organization, the UN. So in other words, they messed with our friends, corrupted our allies, and spoiled our alliances.

That leaves terror:
1. Muhammad Atta, a Sept 11 leader, met with Iraqi intelligence officers prior to the 2001 attack. While Saddam likely had no knowledge of the details or planning of the attack, Iraqi intelligence likely played a supporting role to Al Queda efforts to infiltrate the US and Europe. This was most likely limited to financial support, intelligence, and assistence in securing documentation and transportation into the US.

2. Abu Musab Zarqawi, a high ranking member of Al Queda was known to be in Iraq prior to the war. He is well known as a central figure in the terrorist's efforts there in the last two years. Prior to 2002 he killed American diplomats in Jordan, coordinated with Iraqi intellegence officials, and set up a chemical weapons training camp in Iraq for terrorists.

3. Ansar al-Islam, an Al Queda subsidiary, was based in northern Iraq and partially supported by Saddam's government.

4. Iraq provided cash payments to the families of terrorist suicide bombers in Isreal.

5. Iraq funded a Kurdish terrorist group (the Kurdish Workers Party) in Turkey.

6. Iraq funded the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq, an Iranian dissident group in Iran (although I'm not sure they qualify as terrorists, since anyone opposing the Iranian govt can't be all bad).

7. Iraq supported and provided a haven for Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and the Abu Nidal Organization (whose leader died in Baghdad in 2002).

So, argument 4, Iraq was actively supporting terrorism and harboring terrorist groups. Iraq was put on notice in 2002 that US policy had changed. We would fight not only the terrorists, but also those who shelter and support them.

All of these things together (and others which I'm sure I'm forgetting) make the case for war. But war did not come. Instead the US resorted to months of intense diplomatic activity. Our goal was first to neutralizw the threat posed by Saddam and second to build a coalition to eliminate his threat if diplomacy failed. Saddam's goals were to use his own diplomatic efforts to forstall military action against him and prevent a new coalition. He was partially successful. He subverted the UN and turned France, Germany, and Russia against us. However, Bush countered by courting the new Europe (Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania) and the ignored Europe (Spain and Italy). This gave him the foundation of multilatural support to join staunch US allies Britain and Australia with Asian partners like

PREV PAGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT PAGE