Perhaps this relates more so to immigrants...
You're embarrassing yourself by making an incorrect distinction b/w "immigrants" and "migrants". The former is specifically international, whereas the latter can be international, it has nothing to do with employment. The worse thing is the entire paragraph does not argue the point of culture and behavior.
.
What you're arguing is for Australia to continue accepting immigrants but filter them so that Australia only lets in the skilled people. The filtering process will drastically reduce the number of migrants coming into Australia. Which is the same as agreeing with me: that Australia should accept far fewer migrants.
Your argument is flawed from the definition of the word "migrant". Nowhere can I find in a definition the words "forced" or "unforced". It has nothing to do with being forced or not. A migrant is simply someone who has moved to another country. Convicts are migrants, refugees are migrants, asylum seekers are migrants.
Migrants are disruptive to the current stability and threatens to destroy the fabric of society existing in Australia today. They come in not knowing much about the Australian political systems, the current culture, so they can't really make an informed decision when it comes to voting, they behave in ways that may be normal in their home countries, but are unacceptable in Australia.
Not to mention they bring with them political problems from their home countries, so if they were at war with other groups in their home countries, they continue that war on Australian soil, etc... That, my friend, disrupts the current stability of the country.
.
On the education of the migrants: IT COSTS MONEY!
Money that we can use to better educate the people already in Australia, who ALREADY knows Australian cultures and systems.
You can't kill all the bees... if humans don't exist, species will still go extinct, it's natural to go extinct when your species can no longer adapt to changes in the environment.
Animals have rights? Rights can only be taken, they cannot be given. Just as gifts can only be given, never taken.
So you want to play god.
Saving every insect, every bird, every speck of life that is endangered by human activities? What a crazy idea. Truly. What makes you think we can?
Do wasps stop and say "wait a minute! we don't have to kill and eat bees, let's just feed on leaves instead"
Conservatives are boring... truly, I mean nothing really happens if conservatives get their way...
You can be like "let's do it this way!"
and they'd be like "nah... let's just stick to what always works...",
"but this other way works just as well if not better!",
"nah, it's too much work to change things...",
"but we might learn something new in the process!",
"nah, there's nothing new, it's all been done before...",
"C'mon! It'll be fun!",
"Nah.. it's cool... umm I mean it's ok, that's what I mean, I don't like fun anyways... you go ahead"
People make mistakes. We all may feel the desire for someone else other than our partner, sometimes the situation won't allow us to act on that desire, other times it may just be perfect for action... that doesn't mean we don't love our partner, right?
Vegetarians can't eat cheese
No, you're talking about vegans. Vegans don't eat cheese. Vegetarians on the other hand are a little different as they do eat animal products other than meat.
Also soy can cause hypothyroidism.
So can pregnancy, radiation treatments to the neck area (if you needed to treat cancer), for the rest you can Google it. The major risk factors are if you're over 50 years old or female. Consuming soy never gave me no hypo-nuthin'.
Talk to the vegan monks who practice martial arts about endurance and strength... see if you can out do them in anything physical... endurance and strength is as much about training as it is about eating a balanced diet. This balanced diet can be vegan.
I don't quite understand why people argue healthier or not
Where have you been the last 10 years?
The argument of healthier or not does not play an important role of life or death
You're right, it doesn't. But we're no longer the hunter gatherer tribesmen and tribeswomen thousands of years ago. Most of us are not in any danger of starvation any more. So the argument of healthier is about living longer and being able to function better.
.
Bottom line, if we have evolved to be able to eat both, it means we can choose. Vegetarianism is better in so many ways as have already been mentioned.
This will help you take stress off your bodies functions to maintain homeostasis and will result in a long and healthy life
How will this take stress off you when you're worried about a million and 1 things that could make your meat consumption a bad experience (chemicals, toxins, habitat, method of butchery, method of cooking, preservatives, hormones...).
Methinks vegetarianism is a lot less stressful...
This argument is as stupid as saying banning war will put all those people in the weapons industry out of a job! They can find other things to do, surely...
.
Btw, no body is arguing that meat eating should be banned. We're simply saying Vegetarianism is better.
soy is also one of the types of foods that people are more commonly allergic to
Yeah, if you're allergic to a food, then don't eat it, it's a no brainer. Soy isn't the only protein rich plant. There's also peanut butter and most dairy products such as cheese and things.
Assumptions are dangerous, and belief in god is a massive assumption that people make because they are unable or unwilling to understand why the scientific method is the only way of reaching the truth.
Most scientific theories are built on assumptions that are based on observations of the natural world.
Blaming everything on a God is the easy route, taken by people who do not wish to face the truth that there is no smiling, guiding father figure and that their existence has no real meaning to the universe. People like that always look for the easy route, the one that requires the least intellectual activity.
The scientific method does not exclude belief in a Creator. Many famous scientists believe in a Creator.
How can you call evolution bullshit when all paleontological finds support it?
Correction, I never said evolution was bullshit. If you've read some of my other posts you'd see that I actually said that evolution is a process of creation, meaning that the Creator didn't just pull humans out of thin air but rather subjected everything to the process of evolution and formation.
If you wish to go on believing in your Sky-Bully then by all means, stare at the sky and wonder at how impossible everything seems to be. Gamble through the land, singing praises to the stars. The rest of us will be busy figuring out how to get to them
Not if I beat you to them first! You see, God's going to help me ;)
That's the stupidest question I ever hoird!
I mean it doesn't matter if God exists or not, if we can't have a conversation with him or if we don't have any way of learning anything about him because he is not of our world, then how can we answer the question of WHO made God????
The question is unanswerable.
Why do you think I'm chastizing you? I'm not.
Firstly thanks for your personal touch.
Now, as the creator of this particular topic, I'm just trying to stimulate discussion by injecting thought provoking situations into the mix. If you're having a bad day or if you simply don't feel like following the line of debate I'm presenting, you can just leave it.
What about open relationships?
You say that it's all about love, trust and all that jazz, so if your partner openly relates with other people, never lies about it so there's no trust issue, and loves you very much at the same time. So in many ways it's not called "cheating", but just one time they "fail to report" a relationship and you found out... what then?
A breakup would probably involve broken trust or some irreconcilable differences. The one time I'd probably continue a relationship with broken trust and even ignore irreconcilable differences is if I'm dating someone way beyond my 'league' and we don't have any children together (properties are no consideration at all).
Ok you covered a few bases here. I would tend to go with my feelings at the time I find out about it and I'm gonna discuss each base in different posts to assist others in agreeing/disagreeing:
1 - when it happened - if I found out it happened 10 years ago, it may cause me to think that it wasn't the only time... trust is an issue, so I'd probably lose trust in my partner... it would likely end if something isn't done to gain that trust back quickly.
Just put the toilet up or down depending on how you want it. Since I'm a guy, I'd prefer it up, but if it aint up, then I'd kick it up! No big deal.
This issue is proof that we're living in a time of plenty, we're in no danger of losing our lives and have too much time on our hands.
Things will happen when they need to happen.
So economic recovery will come when it comes, what's the rush? What's so bad about being poor? True happiness aint measured with dollars. Perhaps with the bad economic conditions prolonged, more people may have turned to the Church for guidence and the world woulda been a much more peaceful place...
And if advances in science didn't happen during WW2 what's so bad about that? Why the rush to get advanced? Is there a goal to be reached or something?
And if the UN didn't form back then it'd be because its existence wasn't required... big deal!
And so what if the Earth's population was passed the 7 billion line already? It'll save us from having to have more children now...
All in all, why the rush? All things will happen in good time. Aint no rush in life cos we aint figured out why we're here yet, so why the hurry to get there?
Yeah, things would still have happened, but they wouldn't have happened the same way.
Due to the butterfly effects, where we are today is owing to Hitler and his actions. Had he not been around, we'd not be where we are, and the argument is the whole world could actually be a lot worse off.
Your assumption that without WW2, technologies couldn't have advanced and America wouldn't be able to get out of the Depression is both short-sighted and ignorant of economic cycles.
Technologies would always advance due to the human desires to discover, invent and push at the boundaries of the sciences.
Economies will always experience peaks and troughs, booms and busts. War is simply one of the many events that could stimulate economic activities. A massive sporting event is also good for that, and so are big holiday events like Christmas.
You are too kind, sir :)
I do try to compose a well thought out reply to people who put in an effort to compose a good argument. Although yours was a lengthy post, it was an excellent read.
All in all, you have a great point about the government being responsible to the people, even if the majority of the people may be clueless. So while it would seem that democracy in its purest form may never exist and probably shouldn't, Representative Democracy is probably the next best thing... although something definitely needs to be done about its negative aspects such as:
- manipulation of information
- control of politicians by corporates.
.
Upvote reciprocated!
Proof that aborting a fetus is proper justification of killing
It's potential life. There's nothing to prove. It doesn't have any rights.
.
No doubt you'll disagree and all I can say is that I respect your point of view. The question is: Would you be able to say the same?
That's called discrimination based on level of dependency
No, it's called discrimination based on level of development. Before it reaches a certain stage in development, it'd still only be a potential and it shouldn't have any rights whatsoever.
.
Equivocating on terms is an attempt to ignore the obvious
I'm not ignoring anything. I'm trying to clarify things for, apparently, a stubborn fool. A human potential life before a certain stage in its development shouldn't be afforded any rights whatsoever.
.
What you call "potential" it calls life. In fact it makes no such distinction. Something is either alive or not.
You're still dishing out BS and completely ignoring my points. Look up "potential" separately, then marry the 2 definitions together and then you should read this: I agree that it's life, I'm only making a distinction that it's potential. This is the case because even though it may have all the internal systems of a human life, they're in no condition to function until a certain stage is reached in its development. That's why it's a potential life. If you're incapable of putting the meanings of 2 separate words together, we should stop any further discussions.
.
Banning abortion wouldn't stop the killing of over 1500 humans a day?
Don't quotemine my arguments for your benefit. I said we make laws to help us with our lives. Tell me how banning abortion helps with our lives. Don't deviate. You think the planet is overpopulated now? You think the Earth's resources are being stretched now? Just mandate the saving of every single pregnancies and you'll see how our lives will be affected then...
.
Call it what you will but a duck by any other name is still a duck.
Yes a duck is a duck, unless it's only a potential duck! ;)
waving a magic wand and declaring a human life only potential life or something else is not proper justification
It is proper justification for me and a lot of other people. Because with a potential life, we're not commiting murder. Like I said, we're stuck on the "potential" VS "definite" point.
.
If being thick and asleep keeps me from killing innocent humans in the early stages of development and makes me outraged at their slaughter than I'm guilty as charged and wear those names with honor
I hope you're a vegan as well. It would make sense, since eating meat would mean that you're ending lives. If you're a meat eater, you might say "oh it's not human, so it's ok" but others will say "how dare you discriminate towards other species"... but you should be ok living with them hassling you because you hassle others pretty much the same way.
You keep saying that it's human, which I agree with you. The points of difference seems to be that I regard it as a potential up to a certain point, whereas you think of it more as a definite. You then argue that it deserves all the same rights as that of people. I don't agree I'm afraid. It doesn't deserve the same rights and you can call this discrimination based on level of development ;) (not based on level of dependency as you keep saying). Until it passes a certain stage in its development (mental and physical), it shouldn't have any rights whatsoever.
I actually appreciate your explanation of the idea of perfection and imperfection as it sounds pretty cool! I'd just like to say, though, that I don't know if the Creator is perfect according to this definition (and never claimed it). If I've ever referred to perfection in this discussion, I'm using the meaning of "wow, everything works so well together and is amazing". So if that's the case, your definition of perfection's no longer relevant in our discussion. In fact, if I want to continue to uphold the fact that a Creator created this universe, I'll have to argue that he is in fact, imperfect according to your explanations, which I'd be happy to do...
.
the universe is only amazing to you because you have evolved to find it amazing
Whether or not I find it amazing doesn't negate my belief in a Creator that designed the whole thing, because I'm basing this belief on the likelihood that it was designed and not accidental (instead of on whether it was amazing or not amazing).
.
Some things are just impossible, whether or not someone imagines them
When I say "I can't get my mind around the fact..." what I mean is I don't believe it. The notion that things exist and evolve on their own and is possible because the universe is so infinitely large is BS, to me. The Creator designed it all I'm afraid :)
(Sorry for the misunderstanding).
So with the benefit of hindsight, you're saying that the soldiers in Iraq (specifically) shouldn't be proud.
I don't understand how you can openly admit that it's not their fault (it's the government's fault) but then suggest that they shouldn't be proud of doing their jobs?! Their profession is inherently a noble one and they should be proud of it. If they're being used as pawns in a war, it makes no changes to the nobility of their profession whatsoever. People get killed in wars, so your quoting bodycounts doesn't mean anything. If you only want the "bad people" to be killed, you don't need an army, what you need is a group of secret agents to find and capture those "bad people" and a court to try and determine their "badness" and then execute them. Wars don't work that way, so soldiers should never be proud in your opinion???
I think if you had the control of the armed forces, you'd only ever react to an invasion, is that correct? You would wait for someone to attack and then defend, that's all you'd be doing, you'd always be on the defensive, right? That's the only way for soldiers to be proud of what they do, right?
I'm so very glad that people like you are not in charge of a nation's defense.
So, in this representative democracy that is the USA, if a person plots against the government, he/she is left alone? I doubt it very much! The CIA will be breathing down your neck, making your life and those of your family members a living hell!
What about the nurses and doctors who worked for the German Nazis doing experiments on Jews and retarded people in the second world war
Again, they were a minority and they were made to do things they probably hated with their lives or livelihood at risk. You can't point fingers at them and condemn all doctors and nurses under the Nazis' regime at that time. The vast majority of them saved lives and should be proud of their profession (even if the lives they saved were those of Nazi soldiers). If the purpose of your profession is noble, then it should be assumed so. Individual cases should be looked at if individuals act contrary to that assumption. The majority should not suffer a generalization from the negative actions of a minority.
.
It seems to me you disagree with my fundamental assumption that the war was and is unjust and uncalled for. Am I right in that assumption?
My opinion of whether the Iraq War is justified plays no part in my opinion that we all should be proud of soldiers (in any war). But if you must know, I agree with the war in Iraq.
Cuba is a Socialist Republic and is ruled by a dictatorial regime. It is a communist country. It was the second largest prison for journalists in 2008 (second only to China) and is well known for its human rights abuses. The US should go in there and free the people there, except it'll get nothing in return for its troubles... so why bother?
I agree that for democracy to exist, firstly the people need to control information. That's a challenge in itself.
.
Secondly (and just as big a challenge), the people need to be able to process and make decisions based on those information. Given that most people care more for their lawns and cars and don't care, don't know much about, and probably don't want to know about politics, how are they going to make decisions regarding the welfare of the country and how to relate to other nations?
.
The fates of the masses will probably always be at the whim of elite groups that control information. Hopefully we can somehow control those groups...
You used Rome as an example of a successful democratic society and that at the pinnacle of their success they were most democratic. I would like to challenge the claim that Rome (and any other ancient societies for that matter) was ever a democratic society based on the following:
For democracies to exist, the people must rule either directly or through some form of representative government and can make changes to this representative group if they wanted to. For the people to exercise this power, they need timely and accurate information. Given the modern technologies available today, we're still struggling to get good information to the masses, so I doubt the people of the past had access to good information, if any at all. If information was available, accurate and timely, this would only be available to a very limited few. So in those days, when people were more superstitious than the average modern witch, when they were more prone to fears of the unknown, fears of attack and invasions, when the powerful were those with weapons and were more ambitious than the most powerful leaders today and human lives were nothing to them, who do you think were really running things? The scared little people with no information or those with weapons, great ambitions and a willingness to kill, scare and intimidate the masses using fear to rule them?
.
Today, by all standards, we're more "democratic", but are we really democratic, could democracy actually exist and does it actually work? The 3 sources of frustration noted by you are important considerations, but the following 2 factors are more real and important:
a) Information availability and
b) Ability to process information and make decisions.
A true democracy assumes rule by the people, but if the average citizen has no access to good information and the majority of them doesn't care for politics but rather what the girl/boy next door is doing, wouldn't know what to do with good information if it was available to them so we can't say that democracy is a good thing. At the end of the day, most decisions are made by our representatives, whose motives are as clear as mud to the public, whose morality are questionable and they relate to each other in a back-scratching culture that gives little to no consideration to the wishes of the masses, we can only hope that our leaders have good morals.
I actually attribute good living conditions of today to the:
- general advances in technologies that makes our lives more comfortable and
- the general increase in empathy and humanity in civilization.
.
I suppose a good alternative to true democracy is government by an elite group with the welfare of their people as first priority. Sometimes this system exists in our so-called representative democracies, but sometimes it doesn't.
Saddam's regime wasn't a direct threat but you gotta remember that prior to the war, he went into Kuwait! Threatens the stability of the region, He is a bad ass dictator and so I'm completely ok with the Iraq war. It's great to support the war efforts when everything is going great and you're winning, but that's not a true test of resolve now, is it? I don't like it when people support you during your good hours and abandon you when things aren't going so well.
.
The war would only be a mistake if you went in there with the intention of robbing them of their land or resources or freedom. As it stands, the Iraqis are enjoying at least some form of democracy, more freedom, acceptance in the international community, the US has more of a presence in the middle east. So people should be proud of the soldiers in general and of their presence in Iraq specifically.
You shouldn't question the assumption at all because honor is inherent in the job of each soldier. Just like the doctors and nurses and teachers in civil society. It must be assumed that their jobs are for the greater good of society. If any individual should break the law or act dishonestly or unethically, that individual should be looked at separately from the group and perhaps stripped of their title. Now, soldiers risk their lives while doctors, nurses and teachers don't!
Again: I am not blaming the soldiers for the war. I am questioning the assumption that just by being a soldier you should be proud and considered moral and just
Why do you question the assumption? What's your reason? I mean it's a pretty good assumption if you ask me! Soldiers are there to risk their lives in protecting their country and its values. The Iraq war is no exception.
So you are suggesting that the best way to behave in a warzone is to be out in the open?
No, I suggest that if you act like a combatant and get shot, you should not blame your enemy or say that they've done something shameful.
.
Weather what he was carrying a wepon or a camera, that is beside the issue - The issue is that the Apache pilots where acting like they where playing Nintendo - shooting everything in sight, and bragging about it
So the issue you have is that the soldiers are trying to enjoy their shitty job? You have an issue with the soldiers' use of language? You've just lost all credibility. If I'm an evil immoral SOB, it makes you a pathetic pussy. I'm glad the armed forces aren't full of weak asses like you. You're more likely to praise the enemy while he bip you up the bip.
You could just as well have attacked Brittain on the same grounds (that there could be a terrorist there that could hurt someone)
Maybe you forgot the reasons for the Iraq war. As I recall it, there were suspicions of chemical weapons, the people needed to be freed, and the oil supply was in jeapardy.
.
I am arguing against the assumption that they are always used for moral righteous purposes which people should automatically respect
It's because they are suppose to always be used for moral righteous purposes!!! This assumption is held by everyone including those inlist in the armed forces. It is assumed that the armed forces are there to do a noble job. If they end up doing something immoral, it's not their fault (unless they ignored rules of engagement and of warfare, in which case they should be subjected to disciplinary actions individually).
.
The government serve the interests of corporations, not people
The country is made up of corporations. Corporations are made up of people. So the people's interest is served in the end. If the system aint working, change it! Take the Constitution out and give it a good going over!
.
If you think the people could stop the war, then I think you live in a fairy land in your own ideolog head
So there's nothing anybody can do about anything?... what a hopeless world...
.
I only suggesting that the purpose soldiers have (at least in the Iraq war) is not Honarable, or something to be proud of
The purposes of soldiers in the Iraqi war are honorable. Their purpose is to serve the interests of a nation and the nation is represented by its government. That's pretty honorable if you ask me. Unless you view the US government as a group of rotten dishonorable and immoral thugs... in which case you should change them.
Pressure from family would stop soldiers going into war? If that's how it worked nobody would go to war! Just think about that seriously for a second. Families getting involved in the efforts of any soldiers going into a battlezone will probably do more harm then good for that soldier. If he lacks commitment or concentration for a second on the battlefield, it could result in his death or the death of his comrades!
Iraq is not Americas Neighbor
All countries on this planet is in the neighborhood called Earth. The actions of each country concerns all others as we're all human beings. Sure you can turn a blind eye to your neighbor's mistreatment of his children or stockpiling of dangerous offensive weapons or having power over something that may well rob you of your freedoms, but the strong should not act like the weak.
.
they are no more likely to do so than other country´s Americans would never attack (say Brittain)
Why Britain? They can't seriously be in the same league as Iraq! You're comparing a brutal, oppressive, dictatorial regime to a civilsed, progressive, democratic, modern monarchy. If you're comparing Iraq with any other dictatorial, oppressive regimes then I have this to say:
Life is about choices: A or B (due to limited resources you can't choose both).
If both means you'll be doing something good, but B means you'll benefit lots from doing it, you'd choose B. So the US can choose to free the people of Vietnam or Cuba, but Iraq has lots of oil... ;) It doesn't mean it's an unrighteous choice.
.
Why didnt I stop the war? For the same reason that I didnt stop inflation
So there's not a goddamn thing anybody can do about it, except sit at home and moan about those risking their lives? Nice.
you have to understand the difference between defence and offence. This wasn't eaven a pre-emptive strike!
The best defense is a good offense. If this wasn't even a pre-emptive strike, what do you call it? Soldiers went in there to neutralize the threat of a chemical war and to bring democracy to Iraq. You want Saddam to hold the world to ransom with oil? You would standby while he oppresses Iraqis? Nay-sayers will always say nay, but saying nay will achieve nothing because nothing will amount to nothing.
.
...Washington Post
That people say they don't like something is not the same as actually doing something about it. 9 out of 10 people may not like the war (btw nobody actually likes wars), but unless they vote against it, it doesn't mean anything.
.
There isn't a damn thing regular people can do about it besides march in protest which is what people have been doing since day 1
If there isn't a damn thing anyone can do anything about it, then the system isn't really democratic. It's time to fix that.
.
Having said that, those who break the rules of ethics and honor in their lives should be individually chastized
This statement means that those who act improperly against the rules and laws of society should be criticized individually. It basically means if those soldiers are unethical and broke the rules of engagement and were found to be guilty, they should be frowned upon and punished, not all the soldiers who are involved in the war. Learn to read English so you don't waste my time.
Dilema: In life, there are many choices. If there were 2 choices available to you:
A) Do something good and get nothing for it.
B) Do something good and get plenty of financial gains as a result.
.
Which would you choose to do? Bear in mind that you have limited resources and cannot commit to both.
.
If you're on a witchhunt, you're going to find a witch. But don't forget that America is bringing democracy to the world ;)
That was just an example. The point is people need to be able to elect a government based on good information and they can't. The people who control information are ultimately those who control everything. The general public think they're in control, but because it's impossible for everything to be known, they are only given the illusion of being in control.
Yeah, I keep telling people that we still have slaves but they don't agree with me... it's sad when people are in denial.
.
Anyways, i guess noone wants a change to the system... I mean just think about it, it's fine to change political parties, but changing an entire system is not going to be at the top of everyone's priority list. Fear of change will make sure we don't change anything, until it's forced upon us... perhaps by an external force...
How can you keep society informed?
Say there's a group of terrorist somewhere planning to blow up something. How do you inform people? How would they be able to verify this fact? In other words, how can everyone in society be sure that you're not making this up?
About the video:
"some of the men appear to have been armed..." - so they're armed.
.
"...the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed." - so not everyone were relaxed...
.
As far as I can see, they were hostiles. What the hell is that guy hiding behind the wall at the corner holding an RPG for? Why is he hiding like that? You are in a warzone, don't go around holding weapons and hide behind buildings and expect to be treated like a civilized citizen.
.
If I was there, I'd've done the same thing.
The condition required for democracy to be a good system is that everyone are informed on the issue they vote on. The truth of the matter is, not everyone are informed. Only a minority hold the information. So democracy is kinda like an illusion...
We're not talking about techs but we're talking about political systems, justice, society, all these things evolve. If the democracy is not perfectly democratic, if our justice system isn't exactly just, and our if society can do with some changes, then I say it's time the Constitution be looked at.
I think that the culture in America that people tend to blame everyone else for everything is shameful.
Soldiers don't get a choice on where they go or which war they fight in. As far as they're concerned, they're there to obey orders to protect their country. It's the people who give those orders (and ultimately those vote for them) who are to blame.
"My position is that this culture in America of automatically assuming soldiers are doing an honorable job and a moral thing only makes it easier for the psychopaths who make these senseless decisions to do so."
I don't understand how you linked the 2 things there...
I mean how proud we feel towards soldiers has no bearings whatsoever on how easy it is to commit them to wars. The decision to commit soldiers to wars should never be made lightly, and if it was, you can lay the blames squarely on yourself and those in power, not the soldiers.
Iraq posed no threat to the US before the war
What would constitute a threat to you?
Your neighbors knocking on the door with automatic weapons and refusing you access to necessary freedoms or
Your neighbors stockpiling automatic weapons and can use those against you and refuse you access to necessary freedoms any time they choose
.
Think about this:
If you didn't think it was a righteous war at the very beginning, before the soldiers were committed into Iraq, why the fuck didn't you stop the whole thing?
My problem with this automatic respect for soldiers is that it allows very dumb people who have a hard time earning respect, to get it easilly just if they are willing to take such a job that needs a flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things (like the video shows)
This "flexible morality and willingness to do outrageous things" is protecting the freedom of all Americans. You sit in your comfortable home and you frown upon their actions, but you fail to realize that without them, you're sitting ducks against a world full of those who will not hesitate to rob you of your freedoms.
.
I think this automatic respect for soldiers is exactly that and helps governments do immoral things
Your government (in any democratic system) is supposed to be representing the will of the people. If you're looking for someone to blame, take a long hard look in the mirror! You (the people) can pull those soldiers out of Iraq if you really want to. Don't just sit there and point your fingers in the general direction of those doing the most honorable of jobs (risking their lives). Having said that, those who break the rules of ethics and honor in their lives should be individually chastized.
Happy Easter indeed!
.
This God is supposedly perfect and omnipotent-If you do not believe in a personified God, then God is the wrong term to use
Ok, I'll go with the term Creator from now on to save from any more confusions.
.
This God is supposedly perfect and omnipotent
I wouldn't use the term "perfect" because it's a perceived quality and it's a subjective idea. We can neither perceive the Creator nor agree on what's perfect.
.
The idea of perfection and imperfection regarding the universe
Again, I wouldn't use the term "perfect" here. The universe functions according to the 4 fundamental interactions, however that's all we know so far. There could well be many more "fundamental interactions" that we don't know about. If a certain universal pattern/phenomenon occurs on a time scale of millions of years, that is, if each repetition/cycle of the pattern takes that long, how the heck could we know about it? We'd need to start now, and keep records for a very long time so that future generations might be able to pick up a pattern and learn something....
.
I ask if you would kindly define your God in your next argument.
My idea of a God (and I will now refer to him as the Creator) is that he simply is the creator of everything that we know of. I refuse to believe that the universe could simply be, without wilful design. Other than that, I don't know anything about the Creator due to my inability to sense or perceive him in any way.
I can't get my mind around the notion that because the universe is so infinitely large, all probabilities (including the existence of life and humans) is 1. This basically means that all and everything that we can think of and imagine physically exist somewhere. I think it's kinda silly, because that means all human imaginative creations physically exist somewhere... we just have to cross path with them in the same time and space!
Since all your other arguments have been dealt with one way or another, I'll go on with the disproving of leprechauns:
Earliest known reference to leprechauns was in a fictional medieval tale Echtra Fergus mac Léti (English: Adventure of Fergus son of Léti).
Anything else you want me to disprove about leprechauns? Mention them here and I'll gladly oblige.
Because that means at some point it would become a good thing to kill grown kids when it is necessary for the survival of the species or to foster a peaceful productive society.
We have executions. We execute murderers. These are actually not kids but adults. So we do kill people and I fully support it.
.
Gassing six million Jews was wrong even if the Germans thought it was good
Well, arbitrarily exterminating a race of people goes against human survival.
.
If you were to see someone gunned downed I seriously don't think you are saying to yourself; Hey, we as a society need that person you therefore shouldn't do that. No I think not, your gut reaction is; Whoa! that's not right...what the...
You're absolutely right. But you fail to see that our gut reaction is our subconsciousness and in its own language, it's saying "hey, survival of the species is at stake here!"
.
Level of development
You're exceptionally thick, so I'm not hoping to get through to you at all. I'm simply hoping you'd one day wake up... How is a fetus not the same as person in the park? Well let's see... if the mother suffers a heavy fall or gets a bad virus, the fetus may well be naturally aborted and may no longer be, hell, sometimes it simply takes a little bit of stress felt by the mother for the fetus to be aborted naturally. A person in the park however, takes a hell of a lot more to end.
.
why are there still laws against murder? And why are there hospitals? Why did the President just pass a massive health care reform bill? if we are in no danger whatsoever of being extinct what are we so concerned about? If our survival is not in question then what is the basis for our actions? It can't be survival of the human species, were doing that quite well. So what then is it if it's not survival of the human species? Maybe somethings are actually objectively wrong, maybe human life is valuable and maybe we know it.
Yes, human lives are valuable, but like I said, we're in no danger of extinction. All these measures such as laws against murder, hospitals, national health care, etc... are preliminary steps. Laws to mandate the saving of every possible human fetus would probably be the last thing to do... This may be necessary if something all of a sudden killed 90% of humans on Earth, for example.
Having its own DNA and all the systems that isolate it from the mother's body does not change the fact that it's completely a part of the mother. It will not amount to anything if it's detached from her.
.
I did have it right when I said your view decides when a life is worthy of life and when a life is unworthy of life.
You can think what you like, but at 20 weeks' gestation a fetus is still a person. The fact that society may be able to save it without its mother does not automatically make it a person. It's still so very far from actually entering personhood.
.
And about this notion of "potential life!" by all the standard definitions of life, it's alive and has been throughout, potentiality is a farce
I don't know where you get your definition, but until it has a fully functional, self-sustaining biological system and is not attached to another life via the umbilical cord, I'm going to regard it as potential.
.
And finally were do you get this arbitrary standard of survival and person hood
It's not arbitrary, it's fact. Me and a lot of other people hold this view. We make the laws to help us with our lives. At the moment, we don't actually need to ban abortion cos doing that doesn't actually help, and your argument that abortion equals murder is complete crap.
The fetus really is the mother's property naturally (she created it and didn't have to buy it from anyone) , whereas the slave is bought or forced to be his/her owner's property. The 2 situations simply cannot be compared.
.
That's called discrimination on the basis of level of dependency.
No it's not. There's no level.
The fetus is either completely dependent on its mother, or is completely not dependent. After a certain period of development, an incubator and some formula could totally replace its mother.
As for me and the local grocery store, I won't die if the local store refuses to serve me.
.
...did you forget what we are talking about here? We are talking about a human being.
No, I agree that it's a potential human life. Not an actual life. The 2 things are not the same.
Your first paragraph was mildly interesting, but when you tried to get to the point in the second one, you fall apart again:
For example, the fact that iron is hard does not imply that somebody declared it so. Iron is hard because of its atomic structure
The atomic structure of all things is the result of the way all of their subatomic particles behave. Their behavior is no accident. Gravity is a curious thing, come to think of it, the other 3 fundamental interactions (or fundamental forces) are also curious... God made them. Order in the universe are explained with these 4 fundamental interactions.
.
SMCdebator has yet to mature in the processing and delivery of this thoughts.
Does the Bible say that it's ok to wage war against people of another religion? You people are the reason why there are wars. You just can't help forcing your belief on others and then quotemine the Bible to justify your actions. It's called Bible bashing. And noone likes it.
That's an interesting angle.
Chaos is only an illusion and can never exist.
Things only exist because there is order.
Before order, nothing could be possible and so there was only emptiness.
Which begs the question: How did order come to be?
.
Now we're back to square 1. You'll say order always existed. I'll say God created order. Neither of us can be 100% convincing....
