just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
On November 12 2012 09:45 sc2superfan101 wrote: I think most conservatives probably use the "it's bad for society because it de-legitimizes the sacrament of marriage and family" argument.
This is the best justification they can come up with for their bigotry?
On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
20% tax cut across the board, moar money for military, close loopholes, that's all Romney's fiscal "position" was.
On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
I would like to say yes but that would also depend on what Congress is like.
On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality.
If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth.
A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality).
Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least.
On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:
On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote: [quote] How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"?
Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture.
Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture.
As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay
Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots.
getting offtopic.
To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected.
On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote: How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook?
Curious, what is this referring to?
Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand.
Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching.
I came into this late, how is this relevant to Obama's re-election? Is it because of the Republicans neo-conservative "moral" values or..? I just don't see the connection, feels like this is mildly offtopic.
Can you go into more detail with the bold portion? Because in its current form it is incomprehensibly wrong.
And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
Could you explain how this section is wrong? Especially the last part where religion was mainly just "listen to the church, go to heaven" and the church said pillage and rape Muslims during the crusades and thousands went over to do "gods biding".
I'm not sure what I need to make more coherent.
And after you respond, I'll respond just one more time to make my stance and then stop on this discussion which has flown a bit offtopic, partly because of me but not entirely, such that we can remain ontrack with this thread.
Ok well why do you say "religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims" when religion as a societal phenomena existed long before Islam did; Islam is a specific religion that only started around 600-650 AD, so using the word "religion" here is utterly wrong. If you actually meant "Christianity" this is still wrong because the origins of Christianity predate Islam by hundreds of years. This is all rather pedantic though, the real problem with your thinking is that it preordains certain definitions for "good" and "bad" as though qualitative evaluation of history makes sense, when in reality the procession of cultural change and power structure instantiation inherent to the track of human history render these judgements highly arbitrary. You can point to religious zealotry and its resultant bloodshed, but you cannot then conveniently ignore things like the storage of information during the Dark Ages via both Christian and Islamic religious institutions nor the sorts of religious inspired thinking that informed nearly every major pre-Enlightenment intellectual movement. You cannot artificially separate religion from mankind in order to criticize it, not if one wants to do something productive that is.
I wouldn't go through any long-winded exercise of judgement or fact to disarm the cantankerous reductionism in the cited argument. The worst thing you can say about such people is that after reading Antigone, they'd have the kind of bad taste necessary to think that Creon was the hero of the tragedy.
On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
I think it is hard for moderates to support the republicans fiscal position until their position becomes more moderate. Having an extreme position of "no tax increases, ever" is not a position that encourages negotiation. It is also a position that is relatively new for the party.
On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
I would be more likely to vote for a GOP candidate that doesn't want to increase defense spending than none of the same social positions personally :\ or one that simply has a complete plan to reduce the debt without raising taxes.
On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality.
If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth.
A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality).
Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least.
On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:
On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote: [quote]
Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture.
Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture.
As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay
Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots.
getting offtopic.
To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected.
On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote: How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook?
Curious, what is this referring to?
Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand.
Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching.
I came into this late, how is this relevant to Obama's re-election? Is it because of the Republicans neo-conservative "moral" values or..? I just don't see the connection, feels like this is mildly offtopic.
Can you go into more detail with the bold portion? Because in its current form it is incomprehensibly wrong.
And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
Could you explain how this section is wrong? Especially the last part where religion was mainly just "listen to the church, go to heaven" and the church said pillage and rape Muslims during the crusades and thousands went over to do "gods biding".
I'm not sure what I need to make more coherent.
And after you respond, I'll respond just one more time to make my stance and then stop on this discussion which has flown a bit offtopic, partly because of me but not entirely, such that we can remain ontrack with this thread.
Ok well why do you say "religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims" when religion as a societal phenomena existed long before Islam did; Islam is a specific religion that only started around 600-650 AD, so using the word "religion" here is utterly wrong. If you actually meant "Christianity" this is still wrong because the origins of Christianity predate Islam by hundreds of years. This is all rather pedantic though, the real problem with your thinking is that it preordains certain definitions for "good" and "bad" as though qualitative evaluation of history makes sense, when in reality the procession of cultural change and power structure instantiation inherent to the track of human history render these judgements highly arbitrary. You can point to religious zealotry and its resultant bloodshed, but you cannot then conveniently ignore things like the storage of information during the Dark Ages via both Christian and Islamic religious institutions nor the sorts of religious inspired thinking that informed nearly every major pre-Enlightenment intellectual movement. You cannot artificially separate religion from mankind in order to criticize it, not if one wants to do something productive that is.
I wouldn't go through any long-winded exercise of judgement or fact to disarm the cantankerous reductionism in the cited argument. The worst thing you can say about such people is that after reading Antigone, they'd have the kind of bad taste necessary to think that Creon was the hero of the tragedy.
Interpretations of Antee-Gahn are indeed a rather useful metric
On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
Me... just like I've been saying the entire time in this thread.
On November 12 2012 09:47 sc2superfan101 wrote: just as a small curiosity, is there anyone here who would have voted for a GOP candidate with all the same fiscal positions and none of the same social positions, as Mitt Romney?
I think it is hard for moderates to support the republicans fiscal position until their position becomes more moderate. Having an extreme position of "no tax increases, ever" is not a position that encourages negotiation. It is also a position that is relatively new for the party.
Willing to burn all bridges is a very 70's russian CCCP style of negotiation clearly those people are secret communists.
On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote: well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality.
If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth.
A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality).
Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least.
On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:
On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:
On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote: [quote] How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"?
Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture.
Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture.
As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay
Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots.
getting offtopic.
To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected.
On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote: How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook?
Curious, what is this referring to?
Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand.
Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching.
I came into this late, how is this relevant to Obama's re-election? Is it because of the Republicans neo-conservative "moral" values or..? I just don't see the connection, feels like this is mildly offtopic.
Can you go into more detail with the bold portion? Because in its current form it is incomprehensibly wrong.
And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
Could you explain how this section is wrong? Especially the last part where religion was mainly just "listen to the church, go to heaven" and the church said pillage and rape Muslims during the crusades and thousands went over to do "gods biding".
I'm not sure what I need to make more coherent.
And after you respond, I'll respond just one more time to make my stance and then stop on this discussion which has flown a bit offtopic, partly because of me but not entirely, such that we can remain ontrack with this thread.
Ok well why do you say "religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims" when religion as a societal phenomena existed long before Islam did; Islam is a specific religion that only started around 600-650 AD, so using the word "religion" here is utterly wrong. If you actually meant "Christianity" this is still wrong because the origins of Christianity predate Islam by hundreds of years. This is all rather pedantic though, the real problem with your thinking is that it preordains certain definitions for "good" and "bad" as though qualitative evaluation of history makes sense, when in reality the procession of cultural change and power structure instantiation inherent to the track of human history render these judgements highly arbitrary. You can point to religious zealotry and its resultant bloodshed, but you cannot then conveniently ignore things like the storage of information during the Dark Ages via both Christian and Islamic religious institutions nor the sorts of religious inspired thinking that informed nearly every major pre-Enlightenment intellectual movement. You cannot artificially separate religion from mankind in order to criticize it, not if one wants to do something productive that is.
religious inspired thinking that informed nearly every major pre-Enlightenment intellectual movement
I would argue it quelled any intellectual movement, but this clip should cover it.
But countless examples show this is the case, torturing of galileo for his studies is a prime example though. Also we can see how religion stunts growth simply by beliving in god.
This shows how religion effects the ability of religiously motivated peoples can't move forward or if they do get stunted.
Also I used the Crusades as an example, you're nitpicking semantically. If you predate religion before monotheism and go WAY back most wars were fought over who's god had the bigger penis, move towards the rise of Zoroastrianism with his monotheistic principle and then you had the neo-Jewish monotheistic principles (arguably at one point they were polytheistic then monotheistic, this is still argued today but my studies have shown a sort of Hindu polytheistic view while maintaining the principle of a single entity such that I would agree they were monotheistic before Zoroastrianism made it immensly popular) but then we had religious feuding day in and day out for centuries.
This is how religion sort of went.
and to finally end it
This is how religion (it specifies christianity where the dark ages suppressed religious advances but all religions can be equated in this manner, or so I've seen through studies).
Let alone the fact that religion is used almost entirely to manipulate god fearing indivduals (hitler against jews is a prime example of using christian faith to demonize the Jews in Germany).
Hope that cuts it, anywho that's my take good day.
To be fair the dark ages were caused by the fall of rome. The church came to power beacuse there was no one left other them then that knew how to read books. Reading is useful skill to have
EPT
