On October 27 2008 06:38 Doctorasul wrote: Stem cell research is a related topic I'd love to see some discussion on, if there is disagreement on whether or not it should be conducted. If I'm not mistaken, both candidates have expressed their support for stem cell research. I suspect both Sarah Palin and the Catholic Church are against it. Here's a brief video on the subject.
If you would vote for Obama, I'm curious as to what your reasons are. So I have a poll for you guys:
Poll: For those who would vote for Obama: Please give your reason. (Vote): I find him inspiring. (Vote): I just believe that he is the best candidate for too many reasons to name. (Vote): Simply to keep McCain from winning. (Vote): I know and agree with the majority of his policies. (Vote): He has one specific position that is very important to me. (Vote): He seems intelligent. (Vote): Because he is black. (Vote): I believe he will change things.
On October 26 2008 10:49 Doctorasul wrote: You know, that kind of thing really gets to me.
Catholics standing for "the good of the world", showing me a picture of a poverty-struck African child, while preaching the sinfulness of condom use in a continent ridden with AIDS. Claiming JFK was a good leader because he was catholic. Claiming you can only be for family and moral values if you genuflect to their particular doctrine. Maybe you should stop covering up for the pedophiles you help create, maybe you should learn what humility is before claiming you have the creator of the Universe on your side or you are the only ones that know what he wants from us, maybe you should stop numbing people's minds with anti-scientific propaganda, maybe then some of us might actually think you have the "good of the world" in mind.
I think many of them are changing those notions. However, it is not that hard to understand their point of view. Take a look at Ghandi's revolution. Everyone thought he and his followers were idiots for doing nothing while being beaten up, and while watching their families get beaten up. But the point was that if they had enough faith in their prinicples, what looked like a tough situation would get better without them having to compromise their principles. It's the same with the Catholics.
Basically, whatever is convenient is not always the right thing to do, which is something we can all relate to.
Did you just defend the anti-intellectual, anti-contraception, pro-thought-crime crowd? I'm sorry, but it is hard to understand their point of view, since it is utter bullshit. Are you saying it isn't? Those that are backpedaling on some of these issues do so not because of their religious guidance, which would happily close their minds to the world forever, but because of common sense, reason and because people around them are calling them out on their stupidity and ignorance.
As for the comparison to Ghandi, are you serious? What does the conviction of one's beliefs have to do with whether or not they are true or with whether or not they will help them? Suicide bombers have a lot of faith in their principles; if that's your criteria why aren't you making that comparison instead? What nonsense.
First of all, my wife is Catholic. Are you calling her anti-intellectual and pro-thought-crime? People who label people as being idiots just because they disagree with their principles are no better than the very people they condemn. What's next, calling Muslims "anti-work" because they take a 3 hours break to pray on Friday? Calling geeks "ignorant about the world" because they spend most of their time on the computer? Calling pro-choice people "pro murder"? Is everyone who doesn't agree with you ignorant?
No, it's not nonsense. You haven't understood what I'm saying. I am not defending these people's points of view, I am explaining their reasons for doing it.
The principle is simple: what is convenient is not always the right thing to do. We all apply that principle, though we often disagree with other people's principles.
Let me give another example.
A fair justice system will ensure that a criminal gets a defence in court, even if it is obvious that he's guilty. This is because every man has the right to a fair trial. No matter how heinous the crime, no matter how obvious the guilt, the defending lawyer STILL has to do his best. Many people would argue as vehemently as you have about Catholics that no lawyer should touch such a criminal. But he still deserves a defence anyway because what is convenient (just hanging him) is not the right thing to do.
And yes, we can talk about suicide bombers as well. They're sacrificing their lives for something they believe in. We condemn them for doing that because we don't agree with what they're sacrificing their lives FOR, but the principle of sacrificing your life is certainly something we can all understand. I'm sure Romanians did the same when the Austria Hungary stomped all over the country during WW1.
Catholics don't change their minds because "people around them are calling them out on their stupidity and ignorance." That implies that Catholics somehow become stupid the moment they get baptised. They change their minds because of a variety of factors including society, education, economic situation and so on.
Would you have any respect for someone who drops his principles whenever it's convenient? Where I come from, we call them snakes.
Why is your wife being a catholic at all relevant to the discussion? What, am I supposed to not say anything because you might get offended?
Just because it's religion doesn't mean it's exempt from criticism. You say you're not defending their views, then why do you keep posting in their defense? Explaining how and why catholics believe what they believe has nothing to do with whether or not their beliefs have anything to do with reality. Changing your principles in the face of evidence and reasoning is called intellectual honesty and it deserves more praise than stubbornly defending mindless drivel.
Anyone that is actively pushing catholic agenda is anti-intellectual and pro-thought-crime. Most don't, most are passively supportive of that agenda, in which case the least I can say is that they are victims of religious indoctrination. Either way, there is nothing to be admired about defending a point of view that is not only illogical, but intrusive and harmful to the people around them. If they believed whatever nonsense they do in the privacy of their own minds it would be a different story, but like it is shown by that ad, the nature of at least Christianity is to force itself on anyone and everyone. And you expect the rest of us to sit idly by as bronze-age myths are slowly chipping away at people's hard-fought freedoms because you're offended?
So unless you do want to defend the catholic point of view, I don't think there's anything relevant we're in disagreement about.
Nevermind, I don't think you will understand my point of view anyway. Let's just agree to disagree and get back to the election.
On October 27 2008 11:49 Jibba wrote: What if we have a number of those reasons? I'm voting cause he's black and to stop McCain. Lord help me if Keys runs again.
On October 27 2008 06:38 Doctorasul wrote: Stem cell research is a related topic I'd love to see some discussion on, if there is disagreement on whether or not it should be conducted. If I'm not mistaken, both candidates have expressed their support for stem cell research. I suspect both Sarah Palin and the Catholic Church are against it. Here's a brief video on the subject. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUwnMX8ht3U
It would be better for the world and America if stem cell research was supported. If history has shown anything, it's that any country that tries to hold back scientific development is in for a nasty end. It may not happen straight away, but it WILL happen eventually.
Personally, though, I don't support stem cell research in America, because when Aemrica doesn't support stem cell research, scientists start going to countries that DO support stem cell research, like mine, thus boosting our economy.
Savio, I think people think that stem cells are going to work miracles because there's so much opposition to it. To counter stubborn opposition, you need to play up the benefits, and the stronger the opposition, the more you have to play the benefits up.
On October 27 2008 11:49 Jibba wrote: What if we have a number of those reasons? I'm voting cause he's black and to stop McCain. Lord help me if Keys runs again.
you're voting Obama because Keyes isn't running? I don't think you could find 2 people with more opposing views if you tried
On October 27 2008 11:49 Jibba wrote: What if we have a number of those reasons? I'm voting cause he's black and to stop McCain. Lord help me if Keys runs again.
you're voting Obama because Keyes isn't running? I don't think you could find 2 people with more opposing views if you tried
BTW I don't think it's a hard rule that a single party for Legislative/Executive is bad. It's obviously been bad with Bush and Carter was a schmuck, but 1964 had a ridiculous 68 democratic seats in Senate. How do you think the Civil Rights Act would've gone with a Republican senate?
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00032/sarah-palin-donkey_32781t.jpg)
