Hey that's actually a good idea. Identity politics wants to stop racism, but is racist itself. I should not have to choose a political party based on something I can't decide on. Identity politics is cancer, both on the right and the left.
Nah, that's gotta be Empire. Though some moments were absolutely brilliant, there were some bad scenes or wasted opportunities. Killing off Han Solo for one. I know that would have been controversial, but it would have added more stakes to the story. But the scene where Vader is unmasked was amazing.
From the Lord of the Rings:
Frodo: I wish the Ring had never come to me. I wish none of this had happened.
Gandalf: So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.
Depends in which situation I'd be in. If I was in an I Am Legend scenario, I'd probably sail off on a boat I'd somehow find in a harbor with some supplies, and attempt to reach somewhere with no zombies.
In a Cast Away scenario. I'd build myself a shelter out of bamboo, reeds and twigs, find fresh water and maybe hunt something. I'd also attempt to find a Winston volleyball. Then I would make a smoke signal and wait for a plane or poat to pass by.
"I never said any child would be forced to pray!"
They would be if the State votes for mandatory praying in Public Schools.
"Have you ever heard prayers on national TV during important events?"
Actually no. Yeah, we don't really do that as much in Europe.
"while you do all in your power to censor any mention of God."
Isn't that exactly what you want to do with homosexuals? Censor their very existence from schools? I smell hypocrisy.......I'm fine with religion being discussed in Literature, History or Philosophy classes and the like, as long as it's not taught as doctrine.
"IGNORE!"
Your favourite catchphrase. It really just makes you seem like some butthurt 5-year old. You know don't have to type IGNORE in all caps after your argument, to ignore someone? Maybe just don't reply instead?
If you're a patriot, it essentially means you think your country is superior to the rest. This is almost childish in it's stupidity. I don't hate America. I don't hate Britain. I just don't put those countries above all others, or parade the national flag wherever I go.
I actually think it's the other way round. July 4 parades aren't turning kids into republicans, because they are already. Parades like that are meant for people who have the american flag outside their house and vote for America first. A.k.a Republicans.
America is not a Christian nation, and therefore children should not be forced to pray at a public school, even if the community votes for it. And I will say it again, Homosexuality is only opposed by the far-right and extreme Christians in America. It is largely accepted by most of the public, and children should know that homosexuality is fine.
America is not the far-right stronghold you'd love it to be. If the far-right loses its supporters, America will live on as a better place. It will not just die.
Plastic can be recycled, but sorting the over 50 different types of plastic into different recycling bins, is virtually impossible, and putting all together means it can't be recycled. Why don't you go watch Blue Planet 2, and then see how much plastic harms the ocean and it's ecosystem.
So what would you like the conservatives to do to America. Make Christian teachings obligatory at school? Chemically castrate all homosexuals? You so dearly want to return to a time when everyone was Christian, homosexuals were illegal and thousands of women died in pregnancy. Luckily you're kind are a dying breed, and the younger generations don't share your stubborn ignorance to progress.
So it isn't a solely Muslim ban. This does not change the fact that the ban is still racist and discriminatory. Banning travel for nationals of those countries makes no sense, especially since many of the people affected are good citizens that could provide extra money for the government.
It is, mostly because people getting rich or powerful depends more on who you were born to, than your own merit. Which means we're caught in a cycle where the rich families stay rich, no matter how incompetent, and the poor families stay poor, no matter how hard working. It is rare to find someone from a poor family and neighborhood to become the head of a successful company or become a millionaire.
I don't think so. The examples you listed up there aren't divisive enough for a civil war. And if there was one, I would do anything possible not to fight in it. Call me a coward, but wars are the bane of humanity, and the worst thing that could happen in someone's life.
In terms of technology, it's a three-way battle. Japan, China and Germany are brilliant in this regard. America could be up there too, but it's mostly just Silicon Valley elevating the rest of the country.
Democratically, America sucks. It's 2 party system sucks, it's voting system sucks. It's better than all the countries with dictators, but it lags behind most European countries there.
Culturally, America is very xenophobic and capitalist (Trump embodies most bad American stereotypes perfectly). The nation's mindset as a whole is very selfish, but luckily this is changing for the better. There is no greatest country culturally, because every candidate has been stained one way or another. Germany with Nazism, Japan with imperialism, Spain with extreme Catholicism, etc.
In truth, no country is better than all the rest, because every nation has both good and bad.
Not everyone who doesn't work does so because they're lazy. Many just can't find anything, or don't have the necessary skillset for the available jobs they've rounds. And the government shouldn't discriminate against those that don't work, by not letting them be able to have healthcare. Especially in emergencies, this could be very damaging and potentially life-threatening.
I would definitely make an exception for places like Alaska and others. But in places like Washington DC or New York where everyone has access to supermarkets, it's unnecessary. Hunting as pest control is fine, what I'm against is hunting for sport. What's your opinion on that?
Well, I would think that maybe my thoughts were someone else's thoughts and opinions passed on to me. Also, since my whole notion of who I am would be destroyed, I would probably get very paranoid and come up with ridiculous conspiracy theories and such. But if I was in that situation for real, I don't truly know what I'd do.
So that our opinions, actions and thoughts aren't changed/corrupted by superstition and blind faith. This is no offense to Christians or any other supporters of religion. But without religion, we wouldn't have done the Crusades, millions of people would have been spared from religiously incited genocide and war, and science and technology would be much further ahead than it is now. Religion has caused some good things, but this isn't much compared to the destruction and death that has been done in the name of god.
Education is the key. For example, in countries and states where there is no Sex Ed, people are more prone to catching STDs and having teenage pregnancies. If people aren't taught about the effects of drugs, they won't know what they're getting into.
No, the husband isn't the head of the wife. I believe every person has a level of autonomy over themselves, and in a relationship, the 2 people involved should be on equal footing. Unless, the husband is his wife's boss at work, then the husband shouldn't have more power than the wife.
Because a few liberals want unrestricted abortion, doesn't mean most of them do. I personally feel that it has to be in the early stages (the first month) and with a logical reason. And on hunting, I genuinely feel that it is inhumane if you hunt for sport. While shooting birds or fishing is better than fox-hunting, you're still killing a living animal. If I were to hunt an animal for sport, I would definitely be left with a guilty conscience.
I don't hate the right. I agree with the more moderate right-wingers on a few subjects, and being a right-winger doesn't make you worse or better as a person. I just feel that many viewpoints taken by some conservatives are just backward-minded. I don't hate the Right, I just disagree with it.
I don't know much about hunting rifles, so you're probably right about the scope thing. I have never hunted in my life, and I hope I never have to. I can buy all the food I need in a supermarket, so why would I need to? All I know is that there are differences between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle.
But why would you need a hunting rifle for home protection? Wouldn't a handgun be better? And in this day and age, is hunting really necessary, when you have supermarkets everywhere. Hunting for sport is just another form of barbarism in my opinion. Why not do that in a video game, where no animals get hurt, but you still have fun doing it? People should be able to own hunting rifles if they have a license, but you need to question why you even want to own one.
Prove what? That cloning is morally wrong? I can't, that is just my personal opinion. You cannot prove if something is right or wrong, it is just your own subjective view, which is mostly dictated by the societal norms.
Or are you asking if I can prove that a god doesn't exist? I can't. It is impossible to prove a negative. Try proving that the flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't exist. I just know that there is absolutely nothing to suggest that a god or higher power exists.
There is a difference between an Assault Rifle and a Hunting Rifle. One is semi-automatic and the other is bolt-action (I'm not an expert at all on this, so please correct me if I'm wrong). Another difference is that an Assault Rifle has a scope, which I think the Hunting Rifle doesn't have.
I don't think hunting rifles should be banned, but instead you would have to have a gun license.
Your "clean up your room" example doesn't work for this. You know why your parents are telling you to do so (it's untidy, visitors are coming, etc.). It never states in the Bible why God hates homosexuals, or why he thinks it's wrong. Would you jump off a cliff without question if your god told you so? You can't just blindly follow some made-up doctrine without question, because this corrupts your thinking and moral code. Great people did very bad things in the name of religion (the crusades, the massacre of innocent Native Americans), things they wouldn't have done otherwise. There is no sense in thinking homosexuality is wrong, because it is love, and is just as pure as heterosexual love. If there was a reason, I would understand some people's prejudice against gays and lesbians. But there isn't.
Europe is no utopia but if all Americans need guns to protect themselves against criminals, it's clear there's a big problem with law enforcement in the US. In Europe, terrorists with the right connections can get a gun, but in America they can just walk into a store and buy an Assault Rifle. It's that easy.
If the police had been alerted, they could have come quicker. If immigrants are given more extensive integration programs, that could have stopped many immigrant-related attacks. If people were perhaps taught simple self-defence at school, that could have helped.
If anybody could just buy a gun, that would be giving psychopaths and terrorists easy access to weapons that could aid them in killing many innocent people.
I mean Oceania as in the continent Australia is in.
My plan on disarming America, if I were president, would be to gradually restrict them over a period of time. While I wouldn't plan on banning guns, the end result would be that you have to have a license to buy a gun, and assault weapons like the AR-15 would be illegal. The gangs would pose a problem, but since the change would be gradual (say, 4 years), the odds of them revolting would be much smaller.
Why does America so desperately need guns when Europeans are better off without them? Is America really that dangerous to let civilians arm themselves with dangerous weapons? I would feel much safer knowing it would be harder for criminals to attain their weapons, than me having a gun in my house. The same amendment that lets me purchase firearms, also lets the criminal do so as well. Would a gun help in your scenario? Yes. But it would also help the knifeman.
If you have a safe home, that is hard to break in to, there is little chance any unwanted visitors would be able to come into the house. If the knifeman gets in anyway, I would call the cops if I had the chance, not murder them straight away.
If this is the safest time period in history, then there would be much less need for guns to protect yourself. This is not the Wild West. Guns should have been heavily restricted in America decades ago. Why is America so behind on gun laws compared to Europe or Oceania?
I would say it does, but since I wasn't homeschooled I don't really know. I would however, say that a professional teacher would teach the child much better than their parents (if their parents are teachers, then it doesn't really matter). Thoughts?
"With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion" -Steven Weinberg
Religion twists people's morality, and provides a reason for doing unreasonable things. If you're going to base your moral code on a 2000-year old book, then your morals won't be compatible with society.
If there is going to be one in the future, then it might be over gun rights, but I believe that in the next decade the support for guns will deteriorate. Most likely it will be about differing political ideologies. Fascism vs Communism, or Nationalism vs Socialism, for example.