ghost post.
1. Ban on stem cell research. Adult stem cell research is progessing nicely, with cures galore. If you mean fetal stem cell research, no one banned it and more importantly it has produced nothing. Zip, zero, nada. Maybe we should fund research on changing lead into gold as well.
2. Ban on all abortion. Well I don't know many if any who don't allow the 'big three' though I think the big three are a better compromise than delivering a baby all but a few inches and crushing the skill, or leaving a baby that had the gall to survive in a tray to die. (Both positions favoured by our commander in chief, BTW)
3. Ban on Gay Marriage. A society can reward or condemn behaviour. Socially, anyone can get married, subject to the rules and regulations of the state of residence. Religion doesn't need to factor into it.
3. But it does -- the support for a federal constitutional ban on civil unions has no other basis that has yet been proposed, except maybe the ever-popular "I ain't one of 'em, so to hell with them." It would also undermine the whole state's rights thing you allude to, making state of residence a moot point. It seems like you're personally OK with letting states decide; Palin is clear that she's not, because in her mind it seems that God has already decided for them.
2. Regarding abortion -- not a black and white issue, as you point out -- personally, I feel that anything that has developed a nervous system should be preserved. Yes, most people do support some allowances for early-term pregnancies, especially for the "big three" you mention -- except those approaching the issue from an explicitly religious point of view, who don't allow for exceptions. And I'm talking about Palin here, not you -- Palin's "I'd oppose it even in the case of rape" is a good example of the latter type of thinking.
1. Regarding embryonic vs. adult stem cells: Palin doesn't seem aware that there's a difference: "With a pro-life position, and it's interesting that so many questions revolve around this centeredness I have for respecting life, and the potential of every human life, but no, stem-cell research would ultimately end in the destruction of life. I couldn't support it." --Sarah Palin, 2006 gubernatorial debate.
Remember, I'm talking Palin's stance on issues here, not yours or "conservatives in general" (which of course vary a great deal). I left out some of her more dubious stuff like "we're doing God's will in Iraq," because there are too many ways to misinterpret her statments there in either directions.
Nobody asked me to cite Beck until you just did, but I'll look for some examples there, too, if that's what you really want. For starters, we have him on Fox News (1/25/09), with "Progressives have built up this wall of separation between church and state, and it's nonsense." That's a pretty clear statement to me. When he says things like "The United States must restore God in his rightful place," that doesn't send the message he's OK with church being kept separate from government.
Ban on all abortion. Well I don't know many if any who don't allow the 'big three' though I think the big three are a better compromise than delivering a baby all but a few inches and crushing the skill, or leaving a baby that had the gall to survive in a tray to die. (Both positions favoured by our commander in chief, BTW)
Or let me put it this way:
Abortion is against the Commandments, but it also undermines any society, made of people of any religion. Laws against it are needed from both a religious and secular point of view.
Sorry Mrs. Jones you and your baby are going to die because the state prohibits a abortion that will save your life because it's voilation of one of Gods comandments. You obvisly shouldn't have gotten pergneant in the first place, oh you where raped, well you still shouldn't have gotten pregneant. You obviosly did somthing to make god angry or you wouldn't be in this situation.
Or let me put it this way:
Compasion is the only part God and religion that should be considered when making laws.
I'd love to hear this "flaw" in evolution.
Why, give me some antibiotics and bacteria and I will be happy to SHOW you some evolution.
And if that's not good enough for you, by all means, forgo your annual flu vaccine.
Why, give me some antibiotics and bacteria and I will be happy to SHOW you some evolution.
To save time (Warning! Potentially offensive paraphrase of dialogue I've had many, many times):
Scientist: "WTF is a 'kind' supposed to be?"
Creationist: "Like in the bible. Whales aren't cattle! Show me something between A and Z."
Scientist: Points out fossil M.
Creationist: Now there's twice as many gaps! Show me something between A and M! And something between M and Z!"
Scientist: Points out fossils L and Q.
Creationist: "L is too close to M! You lose!"
Scientist: Lectures boringly about topics like fossilization and gradation between species. Creationist's eyes glaze.
Creationist: "Yeah, well, I don't know anything at all about fossil taxonomy or dating, so however you do it must be false."
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ban on all abortion. Well I don't know many if any who don't allow the 'big three' though I think the big three are a better compromise than delivering a baby all but a few inches and crushing the skill, or leaving a baby that had the gall to survive in a tray to die. (Both positions favoured by our commander in chief, BTW)
Or let me put it this way:
Abortion is against the Commandments, but it also undermines any society, made of people of any religion. Laws against it are needed from both a religious and secular point of view.
Sorry Mrs. Jones you and your baby are going to die because the state prohibits a abortion that will save your life because it's voilation of one of Gods comandments. You obvisly shouldn't have gotten pergneant in the first place, oh you where raped, well you still shouldn't have gotten pregneant. You obviosly did somthing to make god angry or you wouldn't be in this situation.
Or let me put it this way:
Compasion is the only part God and religion that should be considered when making laws.
Offers Xabula a set of glasses, so he can read the post better.
'The Big Three' Rape, Incest, life of the mother/
Thank you for playing though.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd love to hear this "flaw" in evolution.
Why, give me some antibiotics and bacteria and I will be happy to SHOW you some evolution.
And if that's not good enough for you, by all means, forgo your annual flu vaccine.
I did, actually. The issue is micro-evolution vs macro evolution.
The rise in diabetes and obesity in part comes from our lack of ability to process all our high carb diets in the west. If our metabolism adapts, we're still Homo-sapien, Not Homo-sapien-carb.
And this is coming from a guy who ~is~ a card carrying mutant.
The position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?
In Canada, people who are capable of working but refuse to are called conservative party members.
LOL
My post got eaten!
*grumble*
1. While it is impossible (and undesirable) to ensure equality of outcome, society should strive for equality of opportunity.
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death. No one should be denied access to basic shelter, or clean water.
3. No one, no matter their sexual orientation, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), race, or culture, should be denied the rights afforded to other citizens.
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
5. Free markets are wonderful and useful, but they aren't perfect. Their proper operation sometimes requires circumstances that do not exist in the real world, therefore not everything can be fixed by "letting the market handle it."
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil. The most common type of fundamentalism in the modern world is religious.
7. Beware anyone who seeks to dehumanize others.
8. There are very few absolutes. Though humans like to think that way, most things in the real world just aren't that simple. Beware oversimplification and binary thinking.
9. Violence is the last resort; sometimes the last resort is necessary. Usually it isn't.
10. Knowledge is knowing what you don't know. If the other guy's position seems stupid to you, you probably don't understand it.
I reserve the right to add more later. :)
You did good. That's more or less my take, too.
I did, actually. The issue is micro-evolution vs macro evolution.The rise in diabetes and obesity in part comes from our lack of ability to process all our high carb diets in the west. If our metabolism adapts, we're still Homo-sapien, Not Homo-sapien-carb.
And this is coming from a guy who ~is~ a card carrying mutant.
You can die from diabetes, right?
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
LOLThe position is that those who are capable but refuse to work out of laziness or entitlement would NOT be serviced by others. You know kinda like a socially enforced slaves to the lazy?
In Canada, people who are capable of working but refuse to are called conservative party members.
Oh, sure, you can LOL. You're in China. I'm right here while Stephen Harper does a Supreme Chancellor Palpatine impression.
Hmmm, maybe yellowdingo has a point...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
3. But it does -- the support for a federal constitutional ban on civil unions has no other basis that has yet been proposed, except maybe the ever-popular "I ain't one of 'em, so to hell with them." It would also undermine the whole state's rights thing you allude to, making state of residence a moot point. It seems like you're personally OK with letting states decide; Palin is clear that she's not, because in her mind it seems that God has already decided for them.
2. Regarding abortion -- not a black and white issue, as you point out -- personally, I feel that anything that has developed a nervous system should be preserved. Yes, most people do support some allowances for early-term pregnancies, especially for the "big three" you mention -- except those approaching the issue from an explicitly religious point of view, who don't allow for exceptions. And I'm talking about Palin here, not you -- Palin's "I'd oppose it even in the case of rape" is a good example of the latter type of thinking.
1. Regarding embryonic vs. adult stem cells: Palin doesn't seem aware that there's a difference: "With a pro-life position, and it's interesting that so many questions revolve around this centeredness I have for respecting life, and the potential of every human life, but no, stem-cell research would ultimately end in the destruction of life. I couldn't support it." --Sarah Palin, 2006 gubernatorial debate.
Remember, I'm talking Palin's stance on issues here, not yours or "conservatives in general" (which of course vary a great deal). I left out some of her more dubious stuff like "we're doing God's will in Iraq," because there are too many ways to misinterpret her statments there in either directions.
Nobody asked me to cite Beck until you just did, but I'll look for some examples there, too, if that's what you really want. For starters, we have him on Fox News (1/25/09), with "Progressives have built up this wall of separation between church and state, and it's nonsense." That's a pretty clear statement to me. When he says things like "The United States must restore God in his rightful place," that doesn't send the message he's OK with church being kept separate from government.
Someone else brought up Beck, but I'll hit that in a moment.
1) A lot of folks don't know the difference. Since she's pretty clearly speaking of fetal reseach "ultimately end in the destruction of life" I have to agree with her. I'll admit to having an advantage of reading lots of literature, both in work and just because I'm bored. The work Monash released years ago is very promising. In theory, fat people could live forever ;)
2) This goes back to the compromise issue. If that's truely Sarahcudda's position, then she could count on my support on the issue "This far, no further." Maybe that's why I'm not a congresscritter, I'm for finding common ground, but won't compromise my ethics.
3) I think the defense of marriage act/ammendment is a reaction though, not an attack. John Derbshire once wrote that the Majority has an obligation to not opress the minority. The Minority has an obligation to not push for societal change too fast. The assault on what is a traditional institution provoked the reaction, not the other way 'round.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You can die from diabetes, right?
I did, actually. The issue is micro-evolution vs macro evolution.The rise in diabetes and obesity in part comes from our lack of ability to process all our high carb diets in the west. If our metabolism adapts, we're still Homo-sapien, Not Homo-sapien-carb.
And this is coming from a guy who ~is~ a card carrying mutant.
Yeah, in the same way you die from AIDS though, it's the complications that kill you.
Matthew,
All excellent replies, which seem solid and realistic, and could be ascribed to a great many reasonable people. Palin herself, however, has a tendency to underscore her support for certain stances with things like "And I do know there is a God. My life is in His hands. I encourage readers to do what I did many years ago, invite Him in to take over..."
And that's my problem; I don't want someone else's idea of God to "take over" -- I'd rather we retained government that derives its authority from the consent of the governed, not from someone's interpretation of divine mandates. Remember, I have no problems with conservative viewpoints; only with people who push them as part of a larger Dominionist aim.
|
I'd love to hear this "flaw" in evolution.
Why, give me some antibiotics and bacteria and I will be happy to SHOW you some evolution.
And if that's not good enough for you, by all means, forgo your annual flu vaccine.
I did, actually. The issue is micro-evolution vs macro evolution.
The rise in diabetes and obesity in part comes from our lack of ability to process all our high carb diets in the west. If our metabolism adapts, we're still Homo-sapien, Not Homo-sapien-carb.
And this is coming from a guy who ~is~ a card carrying mutant.
Ok. Couple of links about evolution. If you want to go further, I'll be checking the thread.
24 Myths and Misconceptions about Evolution
Oh, and happy New Year, too.
Either way, I want to have your love child, you big, sexy man, you.
I must now take my own life. ;-)
Ok. Couple of links about evolution. If you want to go further, I'll be checking the thread.
Thanks, Paul. I've found that talkorigins tries to keep up with the various myths and misinformation conjured up by anti-evolutionists as well.
Interesting reading. I'll have to take a better look when i find my frakking glasses *sigh*
Found your glasses yet?
That system may require us to accept a certain number of Unworthy Poor, and as long as that option is off the table (which, presumably it is with a statement like "people who choose not to work shouldn't get any of my money"), we're potentially missing out on a system that helps more than it hurts.
I would like to add that trying to deny benefits to the unworthy often has the unintentional consequence of denying benefits to the worthy as well. Take Medicaid as an example. In 2006- in an effort to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving Medicaid- Congress passed legislation that required Medicaid enrollments to provide proof of citizenship in order to receive benefits. Ignore, for the moment, that less than 1% of the Medicaid budget is actually spent on illegal immigrants (see link). The unintentional consequence of this legislation was that it delayed many eligible patients from receiving medical attention because they could not provide the proper paperwork. Of the groups most affected, U.S.-born newborns were one of the largest groups (see other link). Now I'm all for personal responsibility and organization, but when it comes to newborns, can't we just assume that they don't quite have their $#!& together yet?
Anyway, the point is that by denying the unworthy benefits, we don't just miss out on a system that helps more than it hurts. We often gain a system that hurts more than it helps.
What is it? Do people not like me? Is that why you don't respond when I post? I deserve to be flamed too, gosh darnit!
What is it? Do people not like me? Is that why you don't respond when I post? I deserve to be flamed too, gosh darnit!
Ok, if it will make you feel better.
It would be nice if the government would issue some documentation to these kids. Some kind of certification when they are born, that could be used to verify their status. Stupid government not giving a documentation at birth.
There, I hope that makes you happy. ;)
|
|
1. While it is impossible (and undesirable) to ensure equality of outcome, society should strive for equality of opportunity.
2. No one, no matter how lazy or inept, should starve to death. No one should be denied access to basic shelter, or clean water.
3. No one, no matter their sexual orientation, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), race, or culture, should be denied the rights afforded to other citizens.
4. We're all people. We aren't better because of where we are from, or what god we believe in. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking through military or economic coercion.
5. Free markets are wonderful and useful, but they aren't perfect. Their proper operation sometimes requires circumstances that do not exist in the real world, therefore not everything can be fixed by "letting the market handle it."
6. Fundamentalism of all stripes is evil. The most common type of fundamentalism in the modern world is religious.
7. Beware anyone who seeks to dehumanize others.
8. There are very few absolutes. Though humans like to think that way, most things in the real world just aren't that simple. Beware oversimplification and binary thinking.
9. Violence is the last resort; sometimes the last resort is necessary. Usually it isn't.
10. Knowledge is knowing what you don't know. If the other guy's position seems stupid to you, you probably don't understand it.
I reserve the right to add more later. :)
And my reactions:
1. I agree equality of opportunity should be striven for. However no one should be given preferential treatment just because.
2. No one should be denied access to basic needs anything more though should be based off of effort of the person involved.
3. No one should be denied the rights afforded to other citizens, no can they ask for or expect rights made exclusively for them or their small group.
4. We have no right to force others to our way of thinking but we should not be denied the right to explain our way of thinking to others, nor should we not listen to the views of others, we may learn something.
5. Free Markets are very useful, yet as you have stated not perfect, which is why we have regulations.
6. Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to a set of basic principles. Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards.[citation needed] In democratic societies, individuals or groups which advocate that democracy should be replaced with some kind of authoritarian regime are usually branded extremists. Neither of these are evil in and of themselves but rather are used many times as excuses to due evil deeds. {almost typo'ed evil deads}
7. Beware any who choose to dehumanize others or to raise others up above their fellow men.
8. There are some absolutes. Beware making things into shades of grey which are in fact black and white. Beware over complications as well as oversimplifications.
9. Violence is the last resort; sometimes the last resort is necessary. Usually it isn't. Be ready though to use it when you need to.
10. Knowledge is expertise, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; Knowledge of others and of yourself will allow the world to understand itself. Sometimes though when the other guys view seems stupid well it can be. Either that or your own opinion is. Education and experience will allow you to tell the difference most of the time.
So in general I agree with most of your statements.
|
|
as far as evolution goes:
Catholic schools and evolution
As in other countries, Catholic schools in the United States teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are.
There, I hope that makes you happy. ;)
Yes. I feel the love.
as far as evolution goes:
Catholic schools and evolution
As in other countries, Catholic schools in the United States teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are.
Exactly right, and I admire their statement and their viewpoint. But the U.S. is chock-full of young earth creationists (typically Baptist or other protestant denominations) who denounce Catholics as idolators and heretics.
|
|
Exactly right, and I admire their statement and their viewpoint. But the U.S. is chock-full of young earth creationists (typically Baptist or other protestant denominations) who denounce Catholics as idolators and heretics.as far as evolution goes:
Catholic schools and evolution
As in other countries, Catholic schools in the United States teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are.
Yes well they are baptist we can forgive them for that.:P
|
|
Yes well they are baptist we can forgive them for that.:PExactly right, and I admire their statement and their viewpoint. But the U.S. is chock-full of young earth creationists (typically Baptist or other protestant denominations) who denounce Catholics as idolators and heretics.as far as evolution goes:
Catholic schools and evolution
As in other countries, Catholic schools in the United States teach evolution as part of their science curriculum. They teach the fact that evolution occurs and the modern evolutionary synthesis, which is the scientific theory that explains why evolution occurs. This is the same evolution curriculum that secular schools teach. Bishop DiLorenzo of Richmond, chair of the Committee on Science and Human Values in a December 2004 letter sent to all U.S. bishops: "...Catholic schools should continue teaching evolution as a scientific theory backed by convincing evidence. At the same time, Catholic parents whose children are in public schools should ensure that their children are also receiving appropriate catechesis at home and in the parish on God as Creator. Students should be able to leave their biology classes, and their courses in religious instruction, with an integrated understanding of the means God chose to make us who we are.
You're Christians. I thought you were all supposed to forgive people for everything. ;-)
On a serious note, the view you outlined is the view of most Christians in Europe (yes, we do have some. They're a novelty). Despite what the extremists (on both sides) claim, evolution does not equal atheism.
10. Knowledge is knowing what you don't know. If the other guy's position seems stupid to you, you probably don't understand it.
Can I say AMEN to this? Although, *sometimes* the positions are stupid.
In science, the result of research is often that it opens doors to new questions. Sometimes researchers say things like "all my research and education has only made me feel like I know less about x and y".
Of course, opening new doors also leads to the need for more funding :)
Jeff