RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
They also made sure NPC #1 and NPC #2 could not vote to take NPC #3’s stuff just because they were the democratic majority.Really? Wasn't it during the last election something like the following was said:
"We are going to give tax breaks to 95% of the population while raising taxes on the other 5%."
Sounds like voting to take away some of NPC#3's stuff, or maybe I'm just confused.
Shush you. We need to focus on fictional LDS members stealing fictional stuff from fictional lesbians than on what really happens...
Though, it is interesting that whenever a political thread shows up, all the weirdos you never see anywhere else on the boards just come crawling out of the woodwork. Thankfully, this thread hasn't become the proverbial reptile zoo. Yet.
I am very curious as to why you deem somebody to be a "weirdo" because they tend to only post on certain topics, rather than the majority of topics?
I also wonder why you feel the need put down their viewpoints as being a contribution to a "proverbial reptile zoo" ?
Disagree with someone, fine. But genuinely discount their input because it doesn't agree with your thoughts or dogma, or with that of "the group" mind? That, in my opinion, is short sightedness. You may be in danger of overlooking a valid point someone might make that could change your perspective.
With regards to Mr Hanks and his comment...
I believe that he was horribly out of line. His comment was flippant, poorly thought out (if even thought out at all), and truly projecting his own views on the topic.
With regards to religious groups casting their moral views on others...
I believe we need to make an effort to govern what is within our own fences and leave others to do the same. There are basic fundamentals which would need to be laid down. Nothing be done un-consentually. Nothing be done that would harm others. But allow everyone to revel in their own joy with the understanding that they uphold the tenets I proposed a second ago. Why must we *insist* on projecting our beliefs onto others? It is BLATANTLY obvious nobody truly agrees on much of anything. Take these message boards for example. As well as some of my own posts.
As a boy growing up stronger and larger than most others...and true to the other males in my family, my father told me something very basic. He said that my rights extend to the end of my reach, so long as they didn't infringe on anyone elses rights. For all of his failings, I cannot help but believe that at least in this thought, he was ahead of his time.
I would like to let everyone here know one thing. I personally would fight for your right to be you, so long as being you doesn't harm others. Is that so wrong?
If you don't vote based on your morals, what basis do you vote on?
Another question: "When fixing things, if you don't choose the tool based on morals, what do you base your selection on -- color of the handle?" Answer: Personally speaking, I prefer to base it on whether the tool is appropriate for the job at hand. If I need to pound in a nail, I pick a hammer because it's better for that task than a screwdriver is. Color of the handle has nothing to do with it, and neither does morality. Some people may pick the hammer because it's mentioned more times by name in the Bible than the screwdriver is. Those people aren't wrong, mind you... they're just not carpenters.
In government, the job is to make society function smoothly -- not morally, but smoothly. Murder is illegal because allowing it causes your society to disinitegrate into eternally feuding blocs. Indeed, the fact that murder is morally wrong as well might even be a simple function of that.
If you don't vote based on your morals, what basis do you vote on?Another question: "When fixing things, if you don't choose the tool based on morals, what do you base your selection on -- color of the handle?" Answer: Personally speaking, I prefer to base it on whether the tool is appropriate for the job at hand. If I need to pound in a nail, I pick a hammer because it's better for that task than a screwdriver is. Color of the handle has nothing to do with it, and neither does morality. Many people will pick the hammer because it's mentioned more time by name in the Bible than the screwdriver is. Those people aren't wrong... they're just not carpenters.
In government, the job is to make society function smoothly -- not morally, but smoothly. Murder is illegal because allowing it causes your society to disinitegrate into eternally feuding blocs. Indeed, the fact that murder is morally wrong as well might even be a simple function of that.
So your saying that if you believed something was immoral, you would vote for it if it promised make things "function smoothly". Got it.
So you[']r[e] saying that if you believed something was immoral, you would vote for it if it promised make things "function smoothly". Got it.
In some cases, I might. I might think it's immoral to deny health care to people who need it, for example, but I might vote against a universal health care package that would bankrupt the nation. I might think it's immoral to wage war against weaker nations, but I might also vote against a too-hasty withdrawal that would foster chaos in the affected region. Few things exist in a vacuum.
On the flip side, I do refrain from killing my annoying neighbors, although it would certainly be a public service to do so.
well, I think Mormons are nuts; but whatever, long as i dont have to march to their drum I dont really care what they believe. They dont seem un American to me; saw several in the sevice when I was a soldier; their doctine, while I dont know it very well, doesnt seem to put down America. There are some groups I would call un Amercian; like the so called Jehovah's witnesses. From what I know of them; they are pretty much anarchist; not believing or supporting any form of government; but then; come to think of it; that is not really un American either; as being on the outside and a fringe religious movement and wanting to be left alone to live you own beliefs is truly the American dream; i am hard pressed to come up with any group in America that is really Un American; though; by some sides you could consider those who dont support the Constitution as un American which is more or less my view.
The masses have always been deluded into believing that those with frivolous amounts of money in the public eye have something worthwhile to say and it is rarely true.
Voting on morals is to slippery slope to me; seems pretty silly as there are as many moral and philosophical doctrines as there are people; for my self; I am a constitutional and articles of federation based in my voting. Constantly I see little but abuses of governmental power; but, as our forefathers knew; government is a necessary evil as we dont know any other way to get masses amounts of people living together in a civil fashion; I certainly dont have a better idea.
|
So your saying that if you believed something was immoral, you would vote for it if it promised make things "function smoothly". Got it.If you don't vote based on your morals, what basis do you vote on?Another question: "When fixing things, if you don't choose the tool based on morals, what do you base your selection on -- color of the handle?" Answer: Personally speaking, I prefer to base it on whether the tool is appropriate for the job at hand. If I need to pound in a nail, I pick a hammer because it's better for that task than a screwdriver is. Color of the handle has nothing to do with it, and neither does morality. Many people will pick the hammer because it's mentioned more time by name in the Bible than the screwdriver is. Those people aren't wrong... they're just not carpenters.
In government, the job is to make society function smoothly -- not morally, but smoothly. Murder is illegal because allowing it causes your society to disinitegrate into eternally feuding blocs. Indeed, the fact that murder is morally wrong as well might even be a simple function of that.
"Say what you want about Mussolini, he got the trains to run on time." I heard that line from a commentator on a travel video one time.
Its is a lie historically; he is attributed that but it never really happened; was just a wag the dog thing. "Who were the Facists" section of Kenneth C. Davis book; DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY; sorry; dont know how to underline; pg 287. Only source I have here to quote at work; am a historian so this is one of my light reading books.
Pretty much he just murdered his opponents and started wars to keep his people loyal. Trains, unlike the German trains, dont run on time and never did.
|
|
In government, the job is to make society function smoothly -- not morally, but smoothly. Murder is illegal because allowing it causes your society to disinitegrate into eternally feuding blocs. Indeed, the fact that murder is morally wrong as well might even be a simple function of that.
You are right, to a point. The Fathers believed that it was not the role of government to create a moral people, they believed it was the role of moral people to make a government.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
For avoiding the extremes of despotism or anarchy, the only ground of hope must be on the morals of the people.
Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them.
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness. It is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.
George Washington also called morals one of "the essential pillars of civil society." It is clear from reading their writings that the Founders did not believe that government would have to make society moral, because the people would do that on their own.
|
|
Its is a lie historically; he is attributed that but it never really happened; was just a wag the dog thing. "Who were the Facists" section of Kenneth C. Davis book; DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY; sorry; dont know how to underline; pg 287. Only source I have here to quote at work; am a historian so this is one of my light reading books.
Pretty much he just murdered his opponents and started wars to keep his people loyal. Trains, unlike the German trains, dont run on time and never did.
I know it's a falacy, I'm a historian also. I just thought it funny that a travel show would be extoling the virtues of facism, even if they were fake.
So you[']r[e] saying that if you believed something was immoral, you would vote for it if it promised make things "function smoothly". Got it.In some cases, I might. I might think it's immoral to deny health care to people who need it, for example, but I might vote against a universal health care package that would bankrupt the nation. I might think it's immoral to wage war against weaker nations, but I might also vote against a too-hasty withdrawal that would foster chaos in the affected region. Few things exist in a vacuum.
On the flip side, I do refrain from killing my annoying neighbors, although it would certainly be a public service to do so.
Immoral to deny health care, even more immoral to bankrupt the nation, still picking based on morals.
Immoral to fight war against weaker nations, even more immoral to leave a power vacuum in an unstable region, still picking based on morals.
It is clear from reading their writings that the Founders did not believe that government would not to make society moral, because the people would do that on their own.
For the most part. My cortex is refusing to disgorge the Patrick Henry and John Jay quotes to the contrary, urging that the Republic be explicitly founded on the Christian faith... but in the end those two (and the others of like mind; those two were just more verbal and somewhat more eloquent about the whole thing) didn't get to have the Constitution the way they wanted it. Instead, we have government based on the consent of the governed (not based on divine right of monarchs), and we have government "by the people... for the people" (not by the people, for God).
|
|
It is clear from reading their writings that the Founders did not believe that government would not to make society moral, because the people would do that on their own.For the most part. My cortex is refusing to disgorge the Patrick Henry and John Jay quotes to the contrary, urging that the Republic be explicitly founded on the Christian faith... but in the end those two (and the others of like mind; those two were just more verbal and somewhat more eloquent about the whole thing) didn't get to have the Constitution the way they wanted it. Instead, we have government based on the consent of the governed (not based on divine right of monarchs), and we have government "by the people... for the people" (not by the people, for God).
I'm familiar with the quotes from Henry and Jay you are refering to. I'm glad you didn't throw them out here because that would open a whole new can of Ilithid tadpoles that no one would want to try and clean up. ;p
Immoral to deny health care, even more immoral to bankrupt the nation, still picking based on morals. Immoral to fight war against weaker nations, even more immoral to leave a power vacuum in an unstable region, still picking based on morals.
I disagree. I see national bankruptcy as an issue of pragmatism, not morals. You can feel free to disagree; call the hammer more moral than the screwdriver, too, if you like. Tagging the label "moral" on something is something everyone can do at will, and requires no consent from anyone else. I don't find it immoral for anyone to eat shellfish; Leviticus differs with me on that; let the people concerned decide for themselves. But if the shellfish are polluted with mercury and a red tide is in, it's a pragmatic issue for everyone to refrain from eating them.
Immoral to deny health care, even more immoral to bankrupt the nation, still picking based on morals. Immoral to fight war against weaker nations, even more immoral to leave a power vacuum in an unstable region, still picking based on morals.I disagree. I see national bankruptcy as an issue of pragmatism, not morals. You can feel free to disagree; call the hammer more moral than the screwdriver, too, if you like. Tagging the label "moral" on something is something everyone can do at will, and requires no consent from anyone else. I don't find it immoral for anyone to eat shellfish; Leviticus differs with me on that; let the people concerned decide for themselves. But if the shellfish are polluted with mercury and a red tide is in, it's a pragmatic issue for everyone to refrain from eating them.
As you said above about murder, pragmatism can lead to something being considered moral/immoral.
Weird time to jump in but I'm weird that way -
Skimming thru this thread it's interesting to note the 'moral compass' that drives our votes/povs, then sit back and think about how that compass is shaped. Especially when you pay attention to some of the stories that come out from time to time about how children in grade school, especially the younger grades, are encouraged to think 'openly'. (Some stories are REALLY out there, such as having kindergarteners sign anti-homophobic pledges or having other really young students attend a same-sex wedding.) These are made even more salient due to the lack of consistent parental role models. I can see the goal but dislike the method. Of course these are limited, extreme examples. Aren't they? (Ignoring the powderkeg of CHILDREN'S media.)
I guess if you can't socialize adults you start on the next generation, shifting that moral compass a little bit at a time. I'm more open-minded than my parents and I expect my children will be more open-minded than me.
Interesting when the gradual change in society comes into conflict with the 'I want it now' mentality.
Sorry, no solutions. Just observations.
As you said above about murder, pragmatism can lead to something being considered moral/immoral.
Absolutely. I would disagree, however, that this makes it so in any absolute sense. Many saw prohibition as being moral -- but it was, pragmatically speaking, a horribly failed experiment. Historically, attempts to force a uniform morality on the people have come out poorly. Attempts to shape pragmatic laws for a people assumed a priori to be moral (as David mentioned) might be naive, but in the case of the U.S. Constitution (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a few other cases), seem to have worked out pretty well for the most part.
Good Point, just goes to show how a good slogan or jingle can be remembered regardless of factuality to the good or bane of something; take the Pop Rocks example; proven to be safe regardless of how many cokes you drink, the product never recovered from the peoples perception of the truth.
I know it's a falacy, I'm a historian also. I just thought it funny that a travel show would be extoling the virtues of facism, even if they were fake.Its is a lie historically; he is attributed that but it never really happened; was just a wag the dog thing. "Who were the Facists" section of Kenneth C. Davis book; DONT KNOW MUCH ABOUT HISTORY; sorry; dont know how to underline; pg 287. Only source I have here to quote at work; am a historian so this is one of my light reading books.
Pretty much he just murdered his opponents and started wars to keep his people loyal. Trains, unlike the German trains, dont run on time and never did.
hehe, little jibe for you in jest :) our forefathers would say your a socialist who does not follow Laise Faire economics of a free market society and probably aren't a good bullionist. The Mexican-American war, The whole idea of Texas and I could go on is proof that Americans believe it is moral and right to invade and captitalize based on military power.
Though there are many moral Americans; it doesnt seem to carry over in many business practices. I could count the grass roots moral changes in American probably just using my left hand; want to change America; change how big business acts and give them some morality. Their abuses fill volumes; there is no need or national health care of any times if we held the businesses we all worked for accountable. The private sector ALWAYS does things better and more cost effectively than government which is ALWAYS more corrupt and less efficient.
Hard to vote on morals when we dont know the candidates; I sure wish I could find out more about all these judges I keep voting for; by default I tend to deny vote to retain; but feel guilty about how little I know about the candidates and how hard it is to find out any information.
So you[']r[e] saying that if you believed something was immoral, you would vote for it if it promised make things "function smoothly". Got it.In some cases, I might. I might think it's immoral to deny health care to people who need it, for example, but I might vote against a universal health care package that would bankrupt the nation. I might think it's immoral to wage war against weaker nations, but I might also vote against a too-hasty withdrawal that would foster chaos in the affected region. Few things exist in a vacuum.
On the flip side, I do refrain from killing my annoying neighbors, although it would certainly be a public service to do so.
Immoral to deny health care, even more immoral to bankrupt the nation, still picking based on morals.
Immoral to fight war against weaker nations, even more immoral to leave a power vacuum in an unstable region, still picking based on morals.
hehe; this is a fun discussion; am remembering how our forefathers kept calling this "The Great Experiment" hehe
I can give you one grass roots change very easily; the bill that makes all schoolbuses stop and open their doors to look at railways crossings. That was a correction of what you might call a moral abuse when drivers used risky behavior and it got a lot of kids killed; started an uproar; generated a bill; got made a law.
As you said above about murder, pragmatism can lead to something being considered moral/immoral.Absolutely. I would disagree, however, that this makes it so in any absolute sense. Many saw prohibition as being moral -- but it was, pragmatically speaking, a horribly failed experiment. Historically, attempts to force a uniform morality on the people have come out poorly. Attempts to shape pragmatic laws for a people assumed a priori to be moral (as David mentioned) might be naive, but in the case of the U.S. Constitution (and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and a few other cases), seem to have worked out pretty well for the most part.
Personally I would like to see morals outside of political discourse. Religion is problematic in fact because it tends to attempt an imposition of its morals into the general populace when dabbling in politics.
IIRC, social contract would be the guideline for Enlightenment governments, such as the US at its foundation. Social contract is not about morals (though some moral elements, like the principle of solidarity may be a derived effect), but about social justice.
In this sense, before dealing with Mormons or not, Proposition 8 is definitely Unamerican, as it attempts to restrict the rights of individuals and their chances of developing their happiness and possibilities at their fullest (that is Kantian practical reason, and he was quite a bit of a pragmatist) without the liberties of the individual conflicting with those if his neighbor (in other words, a gay couple marrying does not limit non-gay capacities of carrying out a happy free life). It may offend some collective's morals, but that is a matter of subjectivity and again, does not harm anybody's rights by law. Offense of collectives' morals is regulated by "indecency laws" (like considering peeing in public a misdemeanor). Homosexuality is evidently none of those since some time ago, fortunately.
Come down to that, it seems to me that Hanks' singling out of Mormons obeys to a funny paradox: Mormons (or some denominations in LSD Church) are remarkable for fostering or having fostered, either in the open or undercover, a clearly "against the norm" family model (which is, obviously, polygamy).
On another level, my scholarly interest has taken me to read the Book of Mormon, and, unless you apply a very extensive allegorical exegesis, quite a few of its elements, especially concerning race, could be considered Un-American as per the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Historically, the concept of Theodemocracy embodied in Brigham Young was also problematic, etc. It is also remarkable that the 19th century saw 3 "Mormon Wars", either with non-Mormons in the neighboring land (Illinois and Missouri Wars) or with the Union (Utah War).
Mormons were quite American as a product of 19th Century US and the ulterior Expansion to the West, plus the insane spiritual experimentation of the period. If "American" implies compliance with the ideals embodied in the Consitution and its later derivations (Bill of Rights, etc), the origins and quite a good part of history of LSD can be seen quite "fringe".
It is thus paradoxical, but sadly frequent, that a collective with such a history of fringeness lashes against what today is a fringe collective struggling for normality and recognition of rights.
PS I don't like Hanks, personally. Nevertheless, I have no problem with celebrities venting their opinions in public. It is part of civil action and civil awareness, a process which should be concurrent and complementary with political election and representation
Offense of collectives' morals is regulated by "indecency laws" (like considering peeing in public a misdemeanor). Homosexuality is evidently none of those since some time ago, fortunately.
How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? No, if we accept that men kissing in public is not indecent because it is natural, why not allow urination in public as well or defecation, it is all just natural stuff. You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.
|
|
I believe we need to make an effort to govern what is within our own fences and leave others to do the same.
A very New England style view, popular up here in Thoreau-land, where the unspoken rule is 'good fences make good neighbors,' meaning that, 'whatever the hell you do on your land / in your home is none of my business, and I'll ask the same consideration from you...'
There's really only one person in this world whose morals, ethics, beliefs, thoughts, words and actions I'm responsible for, and that's me. If other people do things that I would never do, like eat haggis, that's their business, so long as it doesn't affect me. (If they try to chop up my dog to make their haggis, then it becomes my business!)
I have yet to receive word from God that I've been chosen to sit in judgement over what other people do, so I'll stick to judging not and not throwing stones and focusing on the beam in my own eye.
Perhaps when I've mastered policing my own self (which seems to be less a destination and more of a journey that will last a lifetime...) I'll be better suited to passing judgement on others. Of course, if I reach that lofty state, I probably wouldn't *want to* decide the fates of others...
Catch 22, I guess. The only man who has any business telling someone what is right or wrong (as opposed to legal or illegal) is the man who wouldn't choose to do so, since he'd have escaped the sin of pride.
|
It seems to me that many people have the attitude that 'my rights end where yours begin.' I have this discussion with a friend all the time. I feel and I think from my meager view point that our laws are set up so that, 'My rights and your rights ends, where societies begins.' This then is where some degree of resentment seems to formulate. People assume or want rights that they do not actually have and feel entitled to. As such they get mad at anyone who does not share their same beliefs. But what do I know.
|
|
I vote toward my ideals yes. But that being said while I would vote for gay marriage I would not be for an amendment that makes those churches who disagree with said institution to be made to host these weddings. I'm just saying that your morals belong to you I believe in critical thought toward all issues I vote on.
How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.
You'll love this one -- guy at a Superbowl party here, long line for the restroom, too many Bud Lites, what do do? Guy goes in the back yard. Neighbor kid sees him. He's now a convicted sex offender: hard time in prison and permanent status on the list. In this country, he gets worse punishment than most murderers. So, yes, I'd say that legally-speaking, Americans do view urination as being far more indecent than men kissing.
How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.You'll love this one -- guy at a Superbowl party here, long line for the restroom, too many Bud Lites, what do do? Guy goes in the back yard. Neighbor kid sees him. He's now a convicted sex offender: hard time in a federal penitentiary and permanent status on the list. In this country, he gets worse punishment than most murderers. So, yes, I'd say that legally-speaking, Americans do view urination as being far more indecent than men kissing.
Wow.
How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.You'll love this one -- guy at a Superbowl party here, long line for the restroom, too many Bud Lites, what do do? Guy goes in the back yard. Neighbor kid sees him. He's now a convicted sex offender: hard time in prison and permanent status on the list. In this country, he gets worse punishment than most murderers. So, yes, I'd say that legally-speaking, Americans do view urination as being far more indecent than men kissing.
That's insane. It tells me the judge in the case lacks any form of common sense.
That's insane. It tells me the judge in the case lacks any form of common sense.
Since when does common sense factor into the decision-making of any authority figure?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
That's insane. It tells me the judge in the case lacks any form of common sense.How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.You'll love this one -- guy at a Superbowl party here, long line for the restroom, too many Bud Lites, what do do? Guy goes in the back yard. Neighbor kid sees him. He's now a convicted sex offender: hard time in prison and permanent status on the list. In this country, he gets worse punishment than most murderers. So, yes, I'd say that legally-speaking, Americans do view urination as being far more indecent than men kissing.
I knew a kid in high school, hyper little bastard, maybe 15 or 16 at the time, who was wandering around in front of his sliding glass door in just a towel. He saw his neighbor across the way (older woman), and he waved at her, letting the towel drop in the process.
And, as I understand it, he was a registered sex offender as a result. I'm not sure if that ever went away because he was a minor when it happened, but talk about nutty (no pun intended).
Sex crimes are very odd these days. The other one that I see cropping up a lot these days is those darn kids and their camera phone texting. If you're a 16 year old kid in high school, and your 16 year old girlfriend sends you an adult picture of herself, you just managed to obtain child pornography!
Anyway, I think it's the law as much as the discretion of the judge which is the problem. It'd be hard to say that it's the judge who lacks common sense - he may just be enforcing a dumb law.
|
|
I vote toward my ideals yes. But that being said while I would vote for gay marriage I would not be for an amendment that makes those churches who disagree with said institution to be made to host these weddings. I'm just saying that your morals belong to you I believe in critical thought toward all issues I vote on.
The problem is that too many people do not see the issue as you do. The courts in Massachussets are currentlt dealing with just such a case where a church is being sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. The argument is that because churches recieve tax exempt status, they cannot be given a religious exemption and not perform such weddings. Incidently, some gay atheists also supported Prop. 8 because they opposed the government giving any special rights to what they see as a predominatly religious institution.
|
|
Sex crimes are very odd these days. The other one that I see cropping up a lot these days is those darn kids and their camera phone texting. If you're a 16 year old kid in high school, and your 16 year old girlfriend sends you an adult picture of herself, you just managed to obtain child pornography!Anyway, I think it's the law as much as the discretion of the judge which is the problem. It'd be hard to say that it's the judge who lacks common sense - he may just be enforcing a dumb law.
That reminds me of the case of Genarlow Wilson who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for have sex at age 17 with his 15 year old girlfriend. Dumb application of the law, and it is still a misdemenor for minors to have sexual relations in Georgia.
How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? No, if we accept that men kissing in public is not indecent because it is natural, why not allow urination in public as well or defecation, it is all just natural stuff. You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.
Public urination is unhygienic. I'm OK with public displays of affection, but it your PDA also results in bodily fluids on the street, it's probably indecent. :-)
How is urination any more indecent than say to men kissing in public? Urination is a natural process, just like for example breast feeding, you aren't going to say that breast feeding indecent are you? No, if we accept that men kissing in public is not indecent because it is natural, why not allow urination in public as well or defecation, it is all just natural stuff. You don't like it, don't look, nobody is making you. Stupid puritans.Public urination is unhygienic. I'm OK with public displays of affection, but it your PDA also results in bodily fluids on the street, it's probably indecent. :-)
Unhygienic? Urine is virtually sterile.
Unhygienic? Urine is virtually sterile.
It is sterile when it comes out. Immediately after that point, it becomes a prime breeding ground for bacteria.
(Similarly, a raw egg is sterile when cracked, but will spoil pretty rapidly afterward.)
A puddle of urine in the street does not take long to become a health hazard.
(I'm not trying to interact in any way with the other political content of this thread, but it's highly misleading to state that because something was once sterile, it remains sterile.)
What is your stance on poodles kissing?
Unhygienic? Urine is virtually sterile.It is sterile when it comes out. Immediately after that point, it becomes a prime breeding ground for bacteria.
(Similarly, a raw egg is sterile when cracked, but will spoil pretty rapidly afterward.)
A puddle of urine in the street does not take long to become a health hazard.
(I'm not trying to interact in any way with the other political content of this thread, but it's highly misleading to state that because something was once sterile, it remains sterile.)
Human mouths are alot more unsanitary, how can allowing people to kiss be more hygenic?
What is your stance on poodles kissing?That is hot.
|
|
I vote toward my ideals yes. But that being said while I would vote for gay marriage I would not be for an amendment that makes those churches who disagree with said institution to be made to host these weddings. I'm just saying that your morals belong to you I believe in critical thought toward all issues I vote on.The problem is that too many people do not see the issue as you do. The courts in Massachussets are currentlt dealing with just such a case where a church is being sued for refusing to perform gay marriages. The argument is that because churches recieve tax exempt status, they cannot be given a religious exemption and not perform such weddings. Incidently, some gay atheists also supported Prop. 8 because they opposed the government giving any special rights to what they see as a predominatly religious institution.
I may be a gay, liberal, atheist but I don't betray my ideals and I firmly believe in absolute equality in anyway we can achieve it.
|
|
That's insane. It tells me the judge in the case lacks any form of common sense.
Insane indeed!
Indecency is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect a person to restrict their freedoms *in their one home* on the off chance it offends someone who should have been minding their own business. If someone is offended by something, particularly something that occurs on private property (like some dude pissing in a back yard), then they shouldn't be looking at it. Go look at someone else's property!
'Cause if people want to have hot monkey sex in their hot-tub in the backyard, and some kid stares at them from his back-yard, he's the creepy peeping tom. Buy the little perv a suscription to Hustler and tell him to mind his own business.
Who's standards of decency count, anyway? There's a big deal about public breastfeeding in this country right now, and it seems foolish in the extreme to me, but, after the 'wardrobe malfunction' incident it was explained very clearly that the sight of a female breast is very traumatic to some people, and can *damage them for life* and result in them needing *millions of dollars* in damages, since they apparently only ever see a boob when they look in the mirror.
If my neighbors think women walking around in public without veils on their faces is indecent and immoral, do all the women in our neighborhood have to walk around with veils on to avoid scandalizing them? Meh.
Other people are entitled to their morals. Some consider unveiled faces to be signs of promiscuity and immorality. Others think miniskirts and tramp stamps are pushing it. Some old-fashioned people wonder why the heck today's young men are walking around with their butts hanging out, if they aren't gay and advertising said butts. Some recoil from seeing six year old girls with makeup and pierced ears. Some think nudity is sacred, and hiding a body made in God's image is like tossing a towel over the cross and denying the presence of the divine.
This is America, we're *supposed* to have room for all of those people to co-exist.
'Cause if people want to have hot monkey sex in their hot-tub in the backyard, and some kid stares at them from his back-yard, he's the creepy peeping tom. Buy the little perv a suscription to Hustler and tell him to mind his own business.
mmm...hot monkey sex.......
Indecency is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect a person to restrict their freedoms *in their one home* on the off chance it offends someone who should have been minding their own business. If someone is offended by something, particularly something that occurs on private property (like some dude pissing in a back yard), then they shouldn't be looking at it. Go look at someone else's property!
'Cause if people want to have hot monkey sex in their hot-tub in the backyard, and some kid stares at them from his back-yard, he's the creepy peeping tom. Buy the little perv a suscription to Hustler and tell him to mind his own business.
Yes and no, do you have a privacy fence and the kid is climbing over it to look, then yeah, he is in the wrong. Got no fence and you're swinging it for all to see, then you are in the wrong. In your home with the blinds down and someone is peeking through, their bad. You are waving at neighbors through open windows and flashing them, your bad.
Yes and no, do you have a privacy fence and the kid is climbing over it to look, then yeah, he is in the wrong. Got no fence and you're swinging it for all to see, then you are in the wrong. In your home with the blinds down and someone is peeking through, their bad. You are waving at neighbors through open windows and flashing them, your bad.Indecency is in the eye of the beholder, and I don't think it's at all reasonable to expect a person to restrict their freedoms *in their one home* on the off chance it offends someone who should have been minding their own business. If someone is offended by something, particularly something that occurs on private property (like some dude pissing in a back yard), then they shouldn't be looking at it. Go look at someone else's property!
'Cause if people want to have hot monkey sex in their hot-tub in the backyard, and some kid stares at them from his back-yard, he's the creepy peeping tom. Buy the little perv a suscription to Hustler and tell him to mind his own business.
Yeah, they're definitely in the wrong. My problem with it is being labeled with the stigma of a sex offender. That's a little too harsh for situations like this.
If one operates from the reductionist stance that the purpose of any living creature is to reproduce more of itself, then homosexuality is very much a 'defect,' since it prompts the organism to attempt reproductive activity with a partner that it can't possibly fertilize.
I'm going to disagree with this on the basis of Kin Selection Theory. Even if one chooses to take a reductionist stance and presume that the whole point of the game is to reproduce more of oneself it is still quite possible to explain Gay behavior in a manner that makes sense.
If one takes such a reductionary stance then the point of the game is not so much to make more of one self - thats impossible for a species with more then one sex. In reality one is simply trying to increase the number of ones own genes. That can certainly be done by having children but its also possible to help out ones genes by helping out others that have the same genes. From an evolutionary perspective thats why your sisters welfare is so important to you - she carries 50% of your genes, by helping her you help yourself.
The most extreme example of this I can think of, of a group that thrives while not having children of their own is among the social insects. The vast majority of ants, for example, don't have any children at all. Almost all of them are workers or warriors and instead spend their time making life possible for their Queen. This works, from an evolutionary perspective, because their Queen is also their sister hence helping her to have huge numbers of progeny directly benefits them.
Hence Gayness, in humans, might well work in something of a similar fashion. Genes for being Gay, possibly hooked up with environmental cues, can do well in human societies if having such individuals around increases the the chances of his/her relatives thriving in comparison to groups of humans who don't have Gay relatives. Presumably because having Gay individuals around meant that there where individuals who where not devoting their resources to having their own children but where instead devoting their resources to their siblings, nieces and nephews, who were then more likely to successfully rear children of their own - much the same way as the worker ant who devotes a great deal of time and effort into insuring that her sister has a great many children.