| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Suisen
256 Posts
The problem therefore needs another solution because I agree it is a problem where a solution is needed. But a minimum wage to me seems to be bad for unskilled laborers. So it actually is bad for the people it is supposed to help. Maybe a better solution is to have the government increase the pay until it reaches minimum wage levels. | ||
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
On November 26 2011 12:09 adacan wrote: O dear. You should really educate yourself about global warming. In the 70s 3x as many studies predicted warming than cooling, now no peer reviewed studies are predicting cooling. Even the study by Richard Muller funded by the Koch brothers supports the idea of global warming. Reasonable people can disagree as to what the solutions for global warming should be but to claim that it is a fake environmental movement is just stupid. Okay do a little experiment and put a plant into a carbon dioxide free environment and see if it lives. I mean do you even know how much carbon is there now in the atmosphere? Its 0.0360, yeah that low. I mean if they went for any other gas that is created out of burning fossil fuels like smog I may have been bought into the whole fakes, but the fact that they are so bold going after the element that plants need in order to survive, the whole life cycle on earth is based on carbon dioxide if there is too little of it everything would be dead ! Also have you read the climate gate documents? I mean it exposes the hoax that is global warming so easily and yet people still believe a bunch of known liars and carbon trading promoters like Al Gore. He spend and the movement spend over 1 billion US dollars for the fake movement, of course there are going to be scientists creating fake data. I mean if they gave me one million dollars I might even come out and say global warming is real and its man made and we need to tax everyone to fix it.Of course that would only destroy the economy and make the poor even poorer and destroy the middle class. So then we are going to beg the likes of Al Gore who are going to be like gods to us for a food check. I don't want to live in such a world and not you nor anyone else will force these lies and absurdity. I will not pay taxes for breathing, I will not be manipulated by known liars and idiots like al gore. And you buddy better wake up and realize you are being manipulated and start worrying about real environmental issues like toxic materials being dumped into the water, genetically modified foods and too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would cause all life on earth to die. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:19 TheBomb wrote: Also have you read the climate gate documents? I mean it exposes the hoax that is global warming so easily No they don't. Jesus Christ, you need to go beyond the Fox News headlines and actually educate yourself on the subject. There have been several investigations/studies about these e-mails and ALL OF THEM concluded that the results regarding global warming were legit and scientifically sound. | ||
|
Trumpet
United States1935 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:19 TheBomb wrote: And you buddy better wake up and realize you are being manipulated and start worrying about real environmental issues like toxic materials being dumped into the water, genetically modified foods and too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would cause all life on earth to die. I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100503.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html | ||
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:51 kwizach wrote: No they don't. Jesus Christ, you need to go beyond the Fox News headlines and actually educate yourself on the subject. There have been several investigations/studies about these e-mails and ALL OF THEM concluded that the results regarding global warming were legit and scientifically sound. I've read the whole emails, all of it, unlike you. It pretty much proves its all fake or at least that there is no evidence to claim man made global warming. Might as well blame big foot for global warming. But you go on and pay Al Gore taxes and pray to him to fix the supposed climate change. Like what is it with you absurds? What does climate change even mean? The climate changes every fraction of a millisecond and has been changing for as long as the earth is old. Its getting hotter, its man made global warming, its getting colder its man made global cooling, it rain its man made climate change. You see how stupid it is? You might as well claim that there is too much oxugen and that causes man made global climate change as well. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:58 TheBomb wrote: I've read the whole emails, all of it, unlike you. It pretty much proves its all fake or at least that there is no evidence to claim man made global warming. Again, no. Several independent studies have shown that what you say is simply not true. But please, be my guest and point out what in the e-mails "proves its all fake". | ||
|
TheBomb
237 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:54 Trumpet wrote: I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100503.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html I'm not saying all GM food is bad, I'm saying its not that great as all the advertising will lead you to believe. Listen man they have billions of dollars and use it on advertising which is get 10 random journalists to write for their paper that this GM food increases IQ and strength and eye sight and make you 2x faster and crap like that. I owned a medium sized business I know all about it. I payed lets put it like this a very high level government official to get government benefits for the next 4 years lets just leave it at that. All for 10.000 euros! Imagine if I had billions! I'm telling you the world is not all black and white and pretty much everything is advertising. You really have to dig deep to find out the truth. If I can pay off a high level gov official for 10.000 euros you can pay off few scientists and journalists to write a few articles for you believe me! I'm saying GM food like containing pesticide in it is bad, GM fish that are put in the oceans that totally destroy the natural food chain, etc... But not all of course, its just that its very easy to believe how its the best thing after sex when its not. Most of it is advertising. | ||
|
Fwmeh
1286 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:58 TheBomb wrote: Link and/or quote those parts of the e-mails which you feel support your claim....I've read the whole emails, all of it, unlike you. It pretty much proves its all fake or at least that there is no evidence to claim man made global warming. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
5) gay marriage is a non-issue. you are not going to overturn this, and trying to give the states the right to do so under the guise of "constitutionality" is underhanded and bigoted and everyone knows it. stop trying to subtly undermine the rights of citizens, or, if you're going to, come right out and preach it. don't hide behind legalistic nonsense. I'm always amused when gay marriage (or any similar issues) gets talked about as if it should be automatically accepted. People of any given country have the right to determine collectively what they think is good or bad, acceptable or not, prudent or not. Just like you said you don't get ton control where every cent of your taxes goes, just because you think something is a great idea doesn't mean everyone has to think so. Clearly the issue is not as black and white as you think, because a cursory web search will reveal that different countries have different laws and rulings on the subject. Who are YOU to say that your opinion is the best one? It is well within the confines of an orderly society to make these kinds of decisions. Basically what you're doing is what pilgrims and explorers did hundreds of years ago - "oh these people have different beliefs from me. They must be retarded savages. We better beat our philosophies into them." ryanAnger posted: + Show Spoiler + I disagree with your belief, however, that states shouldn't have power. I believe the states should have a majority of the power in deciding what is best for their own state, and that there should be a FEW federally mandated laws that are just common sense. Things like, equality, no slavery, no murder, teaching of proper science, etc. Things that are objectively good, no matter what. My primary reason for wanting states to have a lot of power to make their own laws is this: The US is geographically larger than all of Europe combined. We have more variation in climate than Europe. We also have more concentrated urban areas, and more rural areas. With this in mind, the cultural, social, and economic differences between any given part of the US are often substantially larger than any area within Europe. As such, you can't just apply "blanket law" at a federal level because it wouldn't always be the best for certain portions of the country. Similarly, you wouldn't be able to just apply a "blanket law" across all of Europe because of geographically, social, cultural, and economic differences. Excellent points that many people outside of the US do not understand. California and Kansas are like two different countries. RE: gmo + Show Spoiler + On November 27 2011 04:54 Trumpet wrote: I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100503.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html GM foods come with other problems like promotion of 1 crop farming (rather than crop rotation), which leads to soil depletion, erosion, insect infestations, rampant disease/fungal infections, etc. They can be great but they also promote styles of farming that are completely unsustainable. As for global warming I like this cartoon: http://www.tmponline.org/wp-content/What-if-we-make-a-better-world-for-nothing.jpg Even if "global warming" is not "real" there are a host of other serious environmental issues that are rapidly getting out of hand. | ||
|
cskalias.pbe
United States293 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:58 TheBomb wrote: Like what is it with you absurds? What does climate change even mean? The climate changes every fraction of a millisecond and has been changing for as long as the earth is old. Seriously? Even for a political thread this is pretty disappointing. Here you are clearly just intentionally misunderstanding in order to make the "absurd" sound ridiculous? How stupid is that? | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:19 TheBomb wrote: Okay do a little experiment and put a plant into a carbon dioxide free environment and see if it lives. I mean do you even know how much carbon is there now in the atmosphere? Its 0.0360, yeah that low. I mean if they went for any other gas that is created out of burning fossil fuels like smog I may have been bought into the whole fakes, but the fact that they are so bold going after the element that plants need in order to survive, the whole life cycle on earth is based on carbon dioxide if there is too little of it everything would be dead ! Also have you read the climate gate documents? I mean it exposes the hoax that is global warming so easily and yet people still believe a bunch of known liars and carbon trading promoters like Al Gore. He spend and the movement spend over 1 billion US dollars for the fake movement, of course there are going to be scientists creating fake data. I mean if they gave me one million dollars I might even come out and say global warming is real and its man made and we need to tax everyone to fix it.Of course that would only destroy the economy and make the poor even poorer and destroy the middle class. So then we are going to beg the likes of Al Gore who are going to be like gods to us for a food check. I don't want to live in such a world and not you nor anyone else will force these lies and absurdity. I will not pay taxes for breathing, I will not be manipulated by known liars and idiots like al gore. And you buddy better wake up and realize you are being manipulated and start worrying about real environmental issues like toxic materials being dumped into the water, genetically modified foods and too little carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would cause all life on earth to die. If you believed in science I would say that: 1. Arguing plantlife needing CO2 is not really a good reason for anything. They respirate in the nighttime... As for your number, it is irrelevant. Arguing that ozone of 0.000002 or less is nothing is the same thing. (do I even need sources on those?) 2. CO2 is a denomination of the effect also called global warming potential or a billion other synonyms. Other gasses such as methane and N2O2 are far more potent. However there are fairly good concensus of calculating the effect based on CO2 as the unit, while either using 20 years or 100 years for effectual comparison-coefficients is somewhat up for grap. (Some coefficients:here, argument for CO2 as the main unit: here) 3. Please read up on the carbon cycle (best source I could find easily: here) If you combine those data you will find out that CO2 is far more than the food of plants and why arguing about too little CO2 is completely none-sensical. 4. Arguing about bias against those sources are probably true. However, you have to consider the opposing views you are leaning on and what they are sponsored by. In that light I think it is clever to not base your opinions on any scientific data or logic! Makes your arguments free of responsibility and any kind of reliability. Be aware that I dont even need to touch on even slightly controversial topics like subjects about correlation between climate change and CO2 to refute your statements. Science is about the message and going for the messenger is a waste unless you can see what is wrong with the message. Please learn where to start when forming an opinion! | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On November 27 2011 05:26 Bigtony wrote: I'm always amused when gay marriage (or any similar issues) gets talked about as if it should be automatically accepted. People of any given country have the right to determine collectively what they think is good or bad, acceptable or not, prudent or not. Just like you said you don't get ton control where every cent of your taxes goes, just because you think something is a great idea doesn't mean everyone has to think so. Clearly the issue is not as black and white as you think, because a cursory web search will reveal that different countries have different laws and rulings on the subject. Who are YOU to say that your opinion is the best one? It is well within the confines of an orderly society to make these kinds of decisions. Basically what you're doing is what pilgrims and explorers did hundreds of years ago - "oh these people have different beliefs from me. They must be retarded savages. We better beat our philosophies into them." ryanAnger posted: Excellent points that many people outside of the US do not understand. California and Kansas are like two different countries. RE: gmo + Show Spoiler + On November 27 2011 04:54 Trumpet wrote: I tried to keep an open mind about this until you got to GM foods. Do some research. GM foods are not a problem, they are a problem solver. Or, if you really believe what you say, you should stop eating the iodized salt that was developed only within the last century, and enjoy all the health problems that come along with the iodine deficiency. GM crops are the easiest and best way to solve problems like vitamin A deficiency, which in the developing world causes approximately 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind, roughly half of whom die within a year of going blind. http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2010/100503.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/16/health/16iodine.html GM foods come with other problems like promotion of 1 crop farming (rather than crop rotation), which leads to soil depletion, erosion, insect infestations, rampant disease/fungal infections, etc. They can be great but they also promote styles of farming that are completely unsustainable. As for global warming I like this cartoon: http://www.tmponline.org/wp-content/What-if-we-make-a-better-world-for-nothing.jpg Even if "global warming" is not "real" there are a host of other serious environmental issues that are rapidly getting out of hand. It's not me who's deciding that gay marriage should be allowed. It's merely the fact that no logical argument can be made against gay marriage that doesn't boil down to fearmongering and bigotry. I suppose if you wanted to declare yourself a totalitarian nation which denies any fundamental rights to citizens, it might be consistent to forbid gay marriage, but considering you're trying to say that there's actually a reason to have gay marriage be illegal, you better be able to support it with a logical or moral argument. You can't, and everyone knows you can't, which is why nobody takes people who are for the prohibition of gay marriage seriously. I'm pretty sure forbidding people from marrying because someone thinks it's gross is a savage belief no matter how you look at it. You know why? Because it's being forced on gay people; it's not like a bunch of people voluntarily entered into a culture which forbade gay marriage. No, some people want to make it illegal to conduct same-sex marriages. In what way is this similar to colonists exterminating native tribes? They exterminated them because they felt like it, not because there was anything inherently wrong with their beliefs, or because anyone was being victimized against their will because of those beliefs. However, forbidding gays from marrying is an injustice no matter which way you slice it, unless you want to argue that rights should be totally subjective. If you do argue that, then how do you justify any uprising in history, like fighting back against Hitler or Stalin? According to your own reasoning, we got rid of these "savages" on entirely arbitrary grounds. So yeah, if you can present a logical argument against gay marriage, go for it. You'll be the first person ever to do it. As to the points presented by RyanAnger, I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your post. I think that it makes sense to have certain contextual laws decided by the states just due to differences in demographics and culture and so on. This, however, should not affect certain things, like human rights, education, health care, and so on, because these things benefit from being standardized and are completely independent of cultural demographics. I also completely disagree with your assertion that there is a greater cultural difference between areas of the US and any areas in Europe. Many European nations are fiercely nationalist and totally attached to their own history and culture. If you've traveled Europe, you'll find a huge difference in culture just by crossing a border. Europeans and non-Americans generally perceive America as ethnically diverse but culturally unitary insofar as there are very few legal avenues devoted to protecting or promoting multiculturalism, as there are in other countries. You still only have one official language and so on. Basically, yes, blanket specific laws need not overpower state regulations, but I think the federal government should endeavour to give a mandate to the states. Something like: "look, we want you to bring your standards in area X to Y level by year Z." I think that this sort of management on a micro scale is fine, and my own country (Canada) has separations of power which allow for this. However certain things are enshrined in federal laws. Something like universal health care is guaranteed to every Canadian province. Ditto for public education. The technicalities of each are left to the provinces, but the general mandate is given by the federal government. I think America should do something similar. I'm totally fine with states having power, but this fanatical urge by some Republicans to justify overturning anything they don't like by appealing to "states' rights" is completely wrongheaded. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On November 27 2011 06:02 Shiori wrote: As to the points presented by RyanAnger, I don't necessarily disagree with the spirit of your post. I think that it makes sense to have certain contextual laws decided by the states just due to differences in demographics and culture and so on. This, however, should not affect certain things, like human rights, education, health care, and so on, because these things benefit from being standardized and are completely independent of cultural demographics. I also completely disagree with your assertion that there is a greater cultural difference between areas of the US and any areas in Europe. Many European nations are fiercely nationalist and totally attached to their own history and culture. If you've traveled Europe, you'll find a huge difference in culture just by crossing a border. Europeans and non-Americans generally perceive America as ethnically diverse but culturally unitary insofar as there are very few legal avenues devoted to protecting or promoting multiculturalism, as there are in other countries. You still only have one official language and so on. Interestingly enough, most American states are fiercely "statist" and totally attached to their own history and culture. If you've traveled to any part of America, you'll find a huge difference in culture just by crossing a border. In fact, I think the ONLY cultural similarity between Kansas and California (to use the earlier example) is the language. Just because you speak the same language doesn't mean you are culturally similar. In fact, there are many places in the United States where English isn't even the "primary" language. Obviously it's the majority language nationwide, but there are a lot of places where Spanish (or Arabic where I'm from) is the "primary" language. Having extensively traveled both Europe (I've been stationed overseas in the USAF) AND the United States, I have a pretty good idea of what's going on here, and at the very least, the United States is as culturally diverse as Europe (if not more). Simply put, your (and most Europeans and Non-Americans) assertion that America is culturally unitary is incredibly uninformed, and terribly wrong. | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
| ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On November 27 2011 04:58 TheBomb wrote: Weren't there over 4000 different documents, including a huge number of emails (something like 1000+) released in that "scandal"? It wasn't a scandal anyway, it was the idiots at Fox and other sensationalist news organizations trying to read scientific data and research without knowing what they are supposed to be reading and ending up misinterpreting everything, taking it all out of context, being told they're wrong by actual climatologists and then ignoring that criticism anyway I'm a little skeptical that you have read every document/email as that would take an enormous amount of time, and that you can make an educated statement on them when other people have pointed that you seem to have a lacking in understanding of basic biology, biochemistry, and climatology. Heck, even if you take a a basic physical geography class at a university you can see that most of the people on Fox, etc. don't have a clue about what they are talking about. Half of the time what they are discussing doesn't even fit the definition of climate, and then they just throw numbers at the viewer to make their claims seem legitimate, when in reality anyone with a basic knowledge of climate science can completely shut down their mostly baseless claims.I've read the whole emails, all of it, unlike you. It pretty much proves its all fake or at least that there is no evidence to claim man made global warming. Might as well blame big foot for global warming. | ||
|
ilovelings
Argentina776 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On November 27 2011 06:32 Bigtony wrote: Not worth replying if you just completely ignore what I'm saying and continue to do the exact same thing I pointed out in my first post. You are making a massive assumption about what is a right - ex 'it is a fact that.' No, it's a "fact" according to people who share your position! I believe that it is within the bounds of a society to decide what is a right. What is morally ok and what is not morally ok (which is not always a 'logical' decision) and when they feel inclined, make laws regarding those issues. This is how our entire government is set up. I also don't think the world is a homogenous place, nor does it need to be. This is why we have different countries and states, so that you can live in a place with like minded people who more or less agree on how society should be run. Okay, if you want to have a retarded opinion, go for it. However: your own constitution guarantees that people have rights. You're not part of a society that says rights don't exist, or that rights are subjective. If they were, then you wouldn't be able to forbid gay marriage on the same grounds! It would be just someone's opinion! Again, let me put it this way: you seem like the sort of fellow who probably thinks the Holocaust was bad. However, you may be interested to know that everything Hitler did was completely and totally legal according to German law, and that Hitler acquired power in a manner that's actually less illegal than you probably thought. There was no uprising against him by the vast majority of Germans, so clearly not many people were terribly opposed. So, is the Holocaust something that the rest of us should have just been "okay" with because a different culture of like-minded people thought killing Jews was okay? I mean, according to you that society is well within their bounds to conclude such a thing. Morality is ALWAYS based on logic. If it isn't, it's non-sensible and you have no reason whatsoever to abide by it. Provide for me a consistent, logical argument against gay marriage that abides by the principles of your nation. Show me why it's immoral or should be made illegal. If you can't think of a good reason, then perhaps you need to reconsider your opinion about the Holocaust. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On November 27 2011 08:54 Shiori wrote: Okay, if you want to have a retarded opinion, go for it. However: your own constitution guarantees that people have rights. You're not part of a society that says rights don't exist, or that rights are subjective. If they were, then you wouldn't be able to forbid gay marriage on the same grounds! It would be just someone's opinion! Again, let me put it this way: you seem like the sort of fellow who probably thinks the Holocaust was bad. However, you may be interested to know that everything Hitler did was completely and totally legal according to German law, and that Hitler acquired power in a manner that's actually less illegal than you probably thought. There was no uprising against him by the vast majority of Germans, so clearly not many people were terribly opposed. So, is the Holocaust something that the rest of us should have just been "okay" with because a different culture of like-minded people thought killing Jews was okay? I mean, according to you that society is well within their bounds to conclude such a thing. Morality is ALWAYS based on logic. If it isn't, it's non-sensible and you have no reason whatsoever to abide by it. Provide for me a consistent, logical argument against gay marriage that abides by the principles of your nation. Show me why it's immoral or should be made illegal. If you can't think of a good reason, then perhaps you need to reconsider your opinion about the Holocaust. Morality should always be based on logic. It's not though. It's subjective 9 times out of 10. I personally believe that "marriage" shouldn't even be a concept that law defines. If you want to get married that should be your prerogative alone. Now, if you want the same legal benefits that "marriage" currently provides you should get a Civil Union, and that should be available to everyone. Of course, this is just semantics, but the usual argument against Gay Marriage by the "Religious Right" is that "marriage is defined by one man one woman." | ||
|
Bigtony
United States1606 Posts
However: your own constitution guarantees that people have rights. You're not part of a society that says rights don't exist, or that rights are subjective. Yes and the constitution also allows us to make laws that limit the actions of individuals through due process. We have laws about porn, nudity, consumption of drugs/alcohol, age of adulthood, etc (and oddly enough different states and countries make different decisions about those things). Do different people have different opinions on these things? Will a pothead say that weed is great? Will a nudist say that getting naked is awesome? Will a non-nudist say that it's bad? Is there a "logical" answer to these questions? And yet for the most part all of those people manage to live in the same society without calling each other retarded. I don't believe getting married (straight or gay) is a right. Just like being able to drive is not a right. Just like public nudity is not a right. I'm not trying to defend gay marriage opponents, I'm pointing out your bad manner and the fact that not all issues have a clear solution. It is the duty of a society to work it out and decide what they think is best for them. No, according to me we don't assume that just because another culture is different, it's "wrong." That doesn't mean we can't say it's wrong, it means we can't say it's wrong without justification. Comparison to the Holocaust doesn't make sense in this context. You're saying that something can be legal/illegal and still be bad. Great, nothing I said has any issue with that and I don't have any issue saying that something another culture does is bad when there is an objective reason for doing so. Turn your question and ask yourself if there is a logical argument for universal adoption of gay marriage. Ultimately the answer boils down to "I think this is a right that people should have and it's protected by the constitution. I think it's a good idea because XYZ reason." Awesome. That doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion that "I don't think this is a right protected by the constitution. I think it's a bad idea for XYZ reason." | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On November 27 2011 09:44 Bigtony wrote: Too busy being BM that you miss the point again. Yes and the constitution also allows us to make laws that limit the actions of individuals through due process. We have laws about porn, nudity, consumption of drugs/alcohol, age of adulthood, etc (and oddly enough different states and countries make different decisions about those things). Do different people have different opinions on these things? Will a pothead say that weed is great? Will a nudist say that getting naked is awesome? Will a non-nudist say that it's bad? Is there a "logical" answer to these questions? And yet for the most part all of those people manage to live in the same society without calling each other retarded. I don't believe getting married (straight or gay) is a right. Just like being able to drive is not a right. Just like public nudity is not a right. I'm not trying to defend gay marriage opponents, I'm pointing out your bad manner and the fact that not all issues have a clear solution. It is the duty of a society to work it out and decide what they think is best for them. No, according to me we don't assume that just because another culture is different, it's "wrong." That doesn't mean we can't say it's wrong, it means we can't say it's wrong without justification. Comparison to the Holocaust doesn't make sense in this context. You're saying that something can be legal/illegal and still be bad. Great, nothing I said has any issue with that and I don't have any issue saying that something another culture does is bad when there is an objective reason for doing so. Turn your question and ask yourself if there is a logical argument for universal adoption of gay marriage. Ultimately the answer boils down to "I think this is a right that people should have and it's protected by the constitution. I think it's a good idea because XYZ reason." Awesome. That doesn't invalidate someone else's opinion that "I don't think this is a right protected by the constitution. I think it's a bad idea for XYZ reason." I think the largest thing in favor of gay marriage that opponents have no argument against is the idea of equality and equal opportunity. Objectively, it's not "fair" that gay couples aren't allowed to join in civil union just because they are gay (or, more appropriately, one man and one woman.) That's blatant discrimination any way you look at it. (And I realize you aren't arguing one way or the other here, I'm just commenting for the sake of clarity.) | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Other Games tarik_tv17440 Grubby2504 FrodaN1113 PiGStarcraft545 JimRising  507Maynarde133 ForJumy  34JuggernautJason32 |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Sharp vs Ample
Larva vs Stork
Wardi Open
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
Afreeca Starleague
JyJ vs TY
Bisu vs Speed
WardiTV Summer Champion…
PiGosaur Monday
Afreeca Starleague
Mini vs TBD
Soma vs sSak
WardiTV Summer Champion…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
