Controversial issues - Left or Right?

[chopiabin]

Oops.

[Hmoll]

All this coming from someone who's overweight, watches more than 6 hours' tv a day, has coke for breakfast, never set foot in a museum, can't speak properly, has a gun under his pillow, can't spot Iraq on a map, and can't understand 99% of the jokes in Frasier ? You're American, right ?

Sounds more like the typical Brit. Chelsea/Arsenal/ManU/etc. supporter, lager lout - and don't say I'm wrong.

Don't generalize, or your stereotypes will turn around and bite you on the a*rse.

[schnabels_grandson]

Are you sorry FOR me? Or for the fact that you are offensive? If you are sorry for me, then don't be I will never need your pity. Maybe Nad doesn't provide sources for what he is saying, but the sources that you provide are incredibly biased. They include people in their studies that should not be included. Comparing homosexuality with necrophilia or pedophilia is ridiculous. The reason why people view these as wrong is that there is no way for the victims to consent to their attacker's actions. A child may say yes, but a young child is not mature enough to make decisions about sex. They have no concept of the emotional damage that it may do to them.

This is why no one thinks it strange when a 16 or 17 yr. old dates a 19 or 20 yr. old. They are capable of making decisions about their sexuality.

I am not sorry FOR you, I reserve my pity for people that regret their situation.  I am not sorry that I am offensive.  I am sorry that you choose to be offended. They are sources nonetheless and their data is as correct as possible.  I stand by my comparison.  According to NAMBLA, a homosexual/pedophile group, youngsters are mature enough to make those decisions.  These kind of people are behind removal of parahilias.  They will eventually win.  Don't think so?  Nobody thought that homosexuality would be removed, until a homosexual group gained enough political power to make it happen.  
What if someone asked a dying person if they could use their corpse for sexual purposes?  Is that ok?  Pretty soon your "new" morality will be the old one, and the new "new" morality will be tolerant to all these perversions.  But if you say anything about it you'll meet with the same reactions that I am currently receiving.      

[schnabels_grandson]

Sounds more like the typical Brit. Chelsea/Arsenal/ManU/etc. supporter, lager lout - and don't say I'm wrong.

Don't generalize, or your stereotypes will turn around and bite you on the a*rse.

Thanks for that, but I did generalize what dutch teachers do.  I implied that they smoke pot and bone 14 year olds.

[Noah]

Sounds more like the typical Brit. Chelsea/Arsenal/ManU/etc. supporter, lager lout - and don't say I'm wrong.

Don't generalize, or your stereotypes will turn around and bite you on the a*rse.

That was the point... I was highlighting the nonsense stereotypes used by 6th_gen : "you're Dutch so you smoke pot and have sex with 14 years old". This is just as stupid as saying "you're American so you're overweight etc.".

I'm not a supporter of any football team, don' t like lager, and for the record I'm not even British.  

[ilovemusic]

Wow, I missed something this weekend !!! I read
trough all the post and considered all the arguments.

I see now. 6th_Gen_Beethoven, you are an ubermensch. The end-product of human civilization. We should have YOUR great morals and values. I am very curious for your intelectual accomplishments.

(You should take the complement of these remarks)

Joost.

[nad]

Again, you don't know enough to judge me as incompetent in any respect.

For the record and to make my point again: YOU don't know enough and do not understand enough about NATURE to judge sexuality.


Once again you showed me that you're a narrow minded idiot, by saying:

So this understanding comes from sitting around a classroom with teahers that smoke pot and have sex with 14 year olds?  You are dutch correct?  

Where does your understanding come from then, a small group of weird hypocritical people who do not dare to show their faces?

PS it's not that you agitate me, that would be too much credit for you...

[Hmoll]

That was the point... I was highlighting the nonsense stereotypes used by 6th_gen : "you're Dutch so you smoke pot and have sex with 14 years old". This is just as stupid as saying "you're American so you're overweight etc.".

I'm not a supporter of any football team, don' t like lager, and for the record I'm not even British.  

I was just using that as an example. I have no idea where you're from.

Forgive me, I get incredibly uppity when people say "typical American."

Now I guess everyone knows how to bait me.


To Beethoven the Sixth:
You know as much about homosexuality, and whether it's pathological (hint: it's not), as you know about Dutch school teachers.  Your aversion to both, however, borders on pathological, and you should consider talking to someone about it.

[schnabels_grandson]

For the record and to make my point again:YOU don't know enough and do not understand enough about NATURE to judge sexuality.


Once again you showed me that you're a narrow minded idiot, by saying:
Quote:So this understanding comes from sitting around a classroom with teahers that smoke pot and have sex with 14 year olds?  You are dutch correct?    




Where does your understanding come from then, a small group of weird hypocritical people who do not dare to show their faces?  

PS it's not that you agitate me, that would be too much credit for you...  

 

Why do you keep implying that I haven't done research or that I'm incapable of "understanding" just because I do not agree with your conclusions?

I already acknowledged the error of using a sterotype.  

I have told you where my understanding comes from.  What do you mean "people who do not dare to show their faces"?  Everybody shows their faces.  I don't just take any schmuck's word for anything.  Or were you implying that I would not dare to say what I have said in public?  That is not the case.

I don't want to be petty, but your demonstrated wit is similar to a parakeet's.  It would be impossible for me to agitate you anyway.  You choose how to react, therefore, unless I physically assualt you, it's up to you how to feel about what I say.

Posted by: ILoveMusic Posted on: Today at 3:20am
Wow, I missed something this weekend !!! I read
trough all the post and considered all the arguments.

I see now. 6th_Gen_Beethoven, you are an ubermensch. The end-product of human civilization. We should have YOUR great morals and values. I am very curious for your intelectual accomplishments.

(You should take the complement of these remarks)

Finally!  Someone has seen the light.  I'm as serious as you are.

Posted by: Hmoll on: Today at 5:29am
To Beethoven the Sixth:
You know as much about homosexuality, and whether it's pathological (hint: it's not), as you know about Dutch school teachers.  Your aversion to both, however, borders on pathological, and you should consider talking to someone about it.

Actually, I only recently discovered that homosexuality isn't pathological.  On the other hand, It is comorbid with many other serious personality disorders.  Once again, someone tells me that it's wrong to be "averse" to homosexuality.  I need therapy right?  I'm a hopeless "homophobe"?  I am not sure if there is treatment for this terrible disease.  To quote thug rapper Eminem:  "Homophobic?  Nah, you just heterophobic".  This is getting boring.    

[Plaz]

Wow, if I had as much time to practice piano as you guys have to rant, then I'd play as well as....Ed!

OK, maybe not THAT well.

This is getting boring.

Now I'm sure we can find some common ground there!

[ilovemusic]

 
Finally!  Someone has seen the light.  I'm as serious as you are.

I assume you know the definition of "complement" ?

[eddie92099]

I assume you know the definition of "complement" ?

If I were you I wouldn't assume anything with these typical Americans . Just joking Hmoll, don't bomb me...
Ed

[ilovemusic]

This may end up degenerating into another version of the religious debate room, but hopefully people will post their opinions and at least attempt to justify them.

So in the end it did not quite turn into a religious debate.... I am happy to see many concerned people.

Joost.

[Clare]

Man, I don't get the whole homophobia thing.
Who cares about whether two guys or two girls are doing their own thing in their own house and having a great time?
It's not your business, baby.
And I'm sick of people sneering at Americans, even in jest. It's so 2003. I'm sure they're all rather nice chaps.

[eddie92099]

6th_Gen_Beethoven, does sexual relations between two women repulse you as much as sexual relations between two men?
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

I would have to go with the left on most issues.  I think abortion should be available.  The concept that a mass of generalized, rapidly dividing cells is a full human is ridiculous.  Many right-wing conservative types claim that abortion is murder, but I disagree.

Gay marriage is perfectly acceptable to me.  What's people's problem with it?  They may say it's not natural, but then again sitting in a desk all day in front of a computer or piano isn't natural.  Eating cakes isn't natural.  Getting ears pierced is not natural.  Why don't we just all don loincloths, grab spears, and go out in the jungle?  Then we can live naturally.  Actually, who created the concept of marriage, anyway?  There have been more than a few cultures with no marriage tradition, and they get along just fine.

I don't support the death penalty.  Nor am I proud of the fact that the US is amongst the only civilized countries that practice it.  We are in the company of China, Saudi Arabia, most of Africa, the former Afghanistan and Iraq, Cuba, etc.

As for the environment, I'm in full support of legitimate environmental protection.  It's bad enough that I was born to live in a time when the environment is already badly degrade; anything to make it worse is just selfish and ignorant.

Gun control is the only issue where I might be a tad more right-wing.  I would support common sense gun registration, and some restrictions on especially dangerous weapons.  That said, I wouldn't take all guns out of everybody's hands.  Few things disgust me as much, however, as those reactionary NRA types.  They take any simple measure to reduce crime as an infringement on the constitution, and call anybody whose not like them "socialist," "liberal," "atheist," (this always gives me a chuckle), and other things.  I spend basically all day around conservative, christian, NRA, war-supporter types and sometimes their opinions shock me.

[schnabels_grandson]

6th_Gen_Beethoven, does sexual relations between two women repulse you as much as sexual relations between two men?
Ed

Yes, it does.  

on Jan 20th, 2004, 3:15am, ILoveMusic wrote:
I assume you know the definition of "complement" ?

Yes I do and I am having a hard time understanding what you meant.  Complement spelled with an 'e' would indicate "Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection."  Compliment with an 'i' would be "An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation."  Quotations from dictionary.com.

[eddie92099]

The concept that a mass of generalized, rapidly dividing cells is a full human is ridiculous.  Many right-wing conservative types claim that abortion is murder

...and go on to murder their criminals without batting an eyelid.

Yes, it does.  

You really are a tragic case,
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

Arguing about definitions is not what this thread is about-this is ideological debate.  I would ask to those of you who would murder criminals, why have they lost their right to life, and who are we to judge them in that way?

[schnabels_grandson]

Yes, it does.  




You really are a tragic case,
Ed

Good.

[schnabels_grandson]

Arguing about definitions is not what this thread is about-this is ideological debate.  I would ask to those of you who would murder criminals, why have they lost their right to life, and who are we to judge them in that way?  

I wasn't arguing about a definition, I was asking what he meant.  

Murder criminals?  Or do you mean murder murderers?  Most "criminals" have done nothing deserving of death.  These murderers have lost their right to life because they have robbed somebody else of theirs.  We are humans who see the error of murder and in an effort to disuade others from killing their fellow man with impunity, we demonstrate that murder will not be tolerated.  Make sense?  Wait.. you're going to tell me it doesn't.  Since I already know that you disagree with me, don't bother typing a lengthy reply explaining your toucht-feely reasoning.  

[eddie92099]

we demonstrate that murder will not be tolerated

By murdering?
Ed

[nad]

Good point there Ed  

[liszmaninopin]

I'm not being "touchy-feely" or whatever you said; I simply question the belief that the death penalty is just.  Most people who are murderers kill anyway; most European countries (without the death penalty) have far lower violent crime rates than those countries with the death penalty.

[schnabels_grandson]

By murdering?
Ed

The definition of murder: The unlawful killing of one human being by another especially when premeditated.

Now, if killing each other was legal in the first place, there would be no murder, just plain killing.  However, termination of a persons life as punishment for a violent crime is legal.  Therefore, executions are not murder by definition.  

Posted by: Liszmaninopin Today at 3:51pm
I'm not being "touchy-feely" or whatever you said; I simply question the belief that the death penalty is just.  Most people who are murderers kill anyway; most European countries (without the death penalty) have far lower violent crime rates than those countries with the death penalty.  

       

Are you suggesting that practice of the death penalty influences violent crime rates?  How?  Maybe the fact that these countries have substantially lower populations explains the difference in crime rates?  Now I'm really wondering what the explanation is.  What do you think?

[liszmaninopin]

Why is one kind of killing lawful, and another not?  Hitler's slaughters were legal in Germany, so by your definition they weren't murder, but killing.

I should have specified, I meant per capita crime rate.  I don't know exactly why Europeans have less crime than Americans, but the point is our death penalty does almost nothing to discourage would be murderers, because if it did, the per capita rate would be lower than in Europe.

[Noah]

Maybe the fact that these countries have substantially lower populations explains the difference in crime rates?

rate    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (rt)
n.
1. A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity: a rate of speed of 60 miles an hour.
2. A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion: the mortality rate; a tax rate.
3. The cost per unit of a commodity or service: postal rates.
4. A charge or payment calculated in relation to a particular sum or quantity: interest rates.
5. Level of quality.
6. Chiefly British: A locally assessed property tax. Often used in the plural.


from Dictionary.com

Sorry Ed for copying your method.  

[schnabels_grandson]

Posted by: Liszmaninopin Today at 4:21pm
Why is one kind of killing lawful, and another not?  Hitler's slaughters were legal in Germany, so by your definition they weren't murder, but killing.

I should have specified, I meant per capita crime rate.  I don't know exactly why Europeans have less crime than Americans, but the point is our death penalty does almost nothing to discourage would be murderers, because if it did, the per capita rate would be lower than in Europe.  

Execution for murder is legal because it is punishment fitting the crime.  It is an equal treatment as far as the end result.  Executionees are fortunate because they are not exterminated in the way their victims often were.  

Hitler's slaughters were legal to him, but genocide is against international law.  He was violating international agreements and laws, so his killings were indeed murders.

I won't deny that the death penalty is pretty impotent in scaring murderers, but as I said, it is equal punisment for the crime.  

[schnabels_grandson]

rate    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (rt)
n.  
1. A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity: a rate of speed of 60 miles an hour.
2. A measure of a part with respect to a whole; a proportion: the mortality rate; a tax rate.  
3. The cost per unit of a commodity or service: postal rates.
4. A charge or payment calculated in relation to a particular sum or quantity: interest rates.  
5. Level of quality.  
6. Chiefly British: A locally assessed property tax. Often used in the plural.  


from Dictionary.com

Sorry Ed for copying your method.  

What was the point in posting the definition of rate?

[liszmaninopin]

I kind of wondered that myself.

[chopiabin]

Gen 6, do you think that the law is ultimately what makes right?

Today in physics we began an environmental debate. A kid quoted Rush Limbaugh (a right wing radio host who recenlty was found to be addicted to Oxycontin) saying that even if global warming existed, the sea level would raise only eight inches, however research shows that the level would raise 500 feet, which would destroy many cities. The kid refused to believe it, although Rush has no scientific evidence for what he is saying. I thought this was funny.

Who has seen Bowling for Columbine?

[ilovemusic]

Yes I do and I am having a hard time understanding what you meant.  Complement spelled with an 'e' would indicate "Something that completes, makes up a whole, or brings to perfection."  Compliment with an 'i' would be "An expression of praise, admiration, or congratulation."  Quotations from dictionary.com.

Not in the set-theoretical sence I meant it (check your math):  https://mathworld.wolfram.com/ComplementSet.html

[liszmaninopin]

Be very careful listening to Rush.  I have done quite a bit of reading about meteorology, and the environment; Rush cares little for facts about these areas when advancing his ideology.

[schnabels_grandson]

Gen 6, do you think that the law is ultimately what makes right?

This is a difficult question.  The short answer is no.  The long answer is somewhat different.  I think that the laws in the united states to a large degree are very correct.  Personally, I think this is because a large portion of the constitution is based on principles from the bible.  Since I feel that the bible was written by God (through men), I also feel that the instructions for humans are as accurate as possible.  If a law is in harmony with what the bible says, it is correct.  

I hope these brief references to the bible don't make this post religious.

By the way, I think everybody hates Rush Limbaugh.  The guy is a dope.  Bill O'reilly anyone?

[liszmaninopin]

The Constitution Bible-based?  I would have to respectfully, but very strongly disagree.  Our constitution is made up of laws composed by intelligent men with common sense and a simple, fair view of justice.  Notice how they left out all the laws on stoning people who try to get you to believe in a different religion, we can eat pork in this country, we are allowed to wear clothing with mixed fibers, we are allowed to sow different crops in the same fields, we are allowed to graze different types of cattle together; all of which are prohibited by the Bible.  Isn't not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing, etc. just common sense?  People in almost every culture in the world have similar standards, and not every culture is Bible-based.  I disagree that the Bible was written by god, but that is for a different thread.

It's scary, but I know alot of people who not only listen to Rush Limbaugh, but believe every word he says.  They are mostly conservative Southern Baptists, however.

[schnabels_grandson]

The Constitution Bible-based?  I would have to respectfully, but very strongly disagree.  Our constitution is made up of laws composed by intelligent men with common sense and a simple, fair view of justice.  Notice how they left out all the laws on stoning people who try to get you to believe in a different religion, we can eat pork in this country, we are allowed to wear clothing with mixed fibers, we are allowed to sow different crops in the same fields, we are allowed to graze different types of cattle together; all of which are prohibited by the Bible.  Isn't not killing, not committing adultery, not stealing, etc. just common sense?  People in almost every culture in the world have similar standards, and not every culture is Bible-based.  I disagree that the Bible was written by god, but that is for a different thread.

Ok, maybe it's not bible based.  I think the men who wrote it were very religious and their views of right and wrong were trained by the bible and that must have influenced it in some way.  It is common sense not to do all those things now, but in ancient times, people were not as inclined to use common sense.

Is it just me, or did this "debate" take on a much more courteous and relaxed tone?  I like it better this way.

Anyone like bill o'reilly?

[liszmaninopin]

Yes, it has become almost more like a conversation than a debate-I kind of like it, too.

But many of the founding fathers were deists, or a kind of wavering Christian.  I think George Washington was perhaps one of the stronger Christians among them.

I don't know if people in general use more common sense than they did back then.  If you're in America, you've surely heard of all the ridiculous lawsuits in this country (commen sense at its finest, there), and all the violence and terrorism around the world suggests that people still act first and think later.

[chopiabin]

I don't listen to Rush, it was a kid in my class. I thought it was funny that the kid believed a drug- addicted radio host over groups of international scientists.


Gen 6, I don't want to flare up a huge debate, but could you be friends with a gay person?


Who has seen Bowling for Columbine? I strongly recommend it to anyone with an open mind.

[schnabels_grandson]

Gen 6, I don't want to flare up a huge debate, but could you be friends with a gay person?

Yes I could.  I have no beef with the people themselves, just some of their actions.  I don't want another debate about that either, the last one really drained me.

[chopiabin]

That's cool, neither do I.

[liszmaninopin]

What is Bowling for Columbine?

[Noah]

Who has seen Bowling for Columbine? I strongly recommend it to anyone with an open mind.

That's a great movie/documentary.

[eddie92099]

I must see that documentary. Michael Moore is a legend,
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

Speaking of Columbine, it really is sad that some people feel that they must use violence.

[eddie92099]

Such as George W. Bush,
Ed

[liszmaninopin]

You have a bit of a point there; although the difference is that George Bush has others (the military) perform the violent acts for him.  He also professes to be "born-again."  Really, though, comments comparing Bush to Hitler or Bush the the Columbine students might seriously offend somebody-could you imagine what the parents of one of the kids killed in Columbine would think of that?  But then again, imagine what the parents in Iraq think of their kidnapped male relatives.  Justice is scarce in the world, unfortunately.

[chopiabin]

It's a hilarious documentary about gun control. He makes some incredible points, and makes fun of the NRA quite a bit. Did you know that Charlton Heston took the NRA to a town one week after a little girl was shot with a gun? The town begged him not to come, but he did anyway.

[liszmaninopin]

I don't mean to make any enemies, but I like anything that pokes fun at the NRA.

[chopiabin]

Hell yeah (in a redneck yell)!

[liszmaninopin]

That's rather clever, Chop.