[karajorma]

Originally posted by Mongoose
Vyper, I would not take an innocent human life to save my own.

So you're against Bush's invasion of Iraq then right? After all everyone knew that innocent civilians would die in the war.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by karajorma


So you're against Bush's invasion of Iraq then right? After all everyone knew that innocent civilians would die in the war.

Ah, but they were heathen civillians......

[karajorma]

Originally posted by aldo_14
Ah, but they were heathen civillians......

Which surely applies to all the unbaptised embryos used in research too

[Knight Templar]

Oh, don't even get me started on baptism...

[Mongoose]

You know what this board needs?  An actual opposing viewpoint.  This whole board is packed with liberals, and you all play off each other.  When someone offers up an opposing viewpoint, you end up smothering it.  I mean, it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion where both sides are equally represented and equally respectful.  As-is, especially in the realm of religion, whenever someone goes against the majority viewpoint here, they end up being ridiculed and mocked.  I'm going to leave you with that thought; congrats on creating an environment where debate is stifled.  

To all of the above mocking religious viewpoints, try actually doing some research.  You obviously have no concept of my views according to your responses, and if I bother to try and explain myself, I'll just undergo more ridicule.  Where's the profit in that?  Here's an experiment in thought:  how about laying off and letting me explain myself and then returning with actual questions instead of more flamebait?  I mean, the past 10-15 posts each contain some element of mockery.  This isn't debate; it's a farce.

[Grey Wolf]

That's what Liberator is for.

[Bobboau]

Originally posted by Mongoose
You know what this board needs?  An actual opposing viewpoint.

what are you?

go on and try to gather up some frends if you want, it won't make you right in the end, your argument(s) will basicly boil down to "I'm right becase what I belive makes me happy"
but if you want to have a discusion go ahead, and I'll be ready.

[Flipside]

Heh, I thought Democracy was about majorities

Seriously though, a question : Why do you think it is that, whenever you take a multi-national board such as this one, the majority of people are liberal-minded?

[Bobboau]

I think it's time I bring out this gem from debates past

Liberator:
The difference between us, you self-righteous know-it-all,
is Christians no longer believe in forcing our religion on others,
granted it wasn't always so.

Stryke 9:
And this meshes with your demands that gays be treated unequally because your religion says they aren't equal... how?

How about your claims that the separation of church and state was intended to be one-way? What about... ****, basically every other post you've made has exhibited how little you respect any opinions or beliefs not yours, and how quickly you'd foist your twisted personal values on everybody given half a chance.

Liberator:
That's different, Faith in the power of Christ to save your soul from eternal damnation away from God is an intensly personal decision, the fact that they practice homosexuality shows that they have made their decision to turn from God already. I believe that they can change their decision and must be allowed to do so, it doesn't mean however that I must sanction their immorality.

BTW, that is what makes Hell so unbearable, it won't be the immense amounts of torture and continuous, unabating physical pain, the fact that God will turn his gaze from you forever is what makes it so horrible. Whether you beleive it or not, you are in God's gaze right now, enveloped in his love, he only awaits your decision.

Just so you know, my beliefs are relatively mainstream, when compared to your's or Kazan's. Your's just seem to be more widespread because your kind have infiltrated both the mass media(television and print) and most of the institutions of higher learning, the latter because the loser professors can't get a job in the Real World.

[Taristin]

Originally posted by Mongoose
 I mean, it's almost impossible to have a rational discussion where both sides are equally represented and equally respectful.  

You want to have a rational discussion about the way the world is, and the way that people of different backgrounds should be governed, yet you disagree with every law that isn't based on your christian POV. We're not bashing christianity, it's got it's pros, and it's got it's cons. But it doesn't apply to those who don't believe in it.

Just as you would not like to live under Muslim law, Aetheists do not want to live under christian law.

Also, about these arguments being smothered and 'irrational'... well, let me point out that you base your arguments on faith. You are arguing the way that we believe things, based on fact, with the way you believe things, based on feelings. THey don't work interchangeably. Sorry. But until you can raise an argument for why things should be the way you feel they should be, and NOT[/i] base it on 'what God said/feels/wants' then you will be having this exact same situation repeating itself over and over again. Don't like it?  Prove us wrong without mentioning god.

[Flipside]

The fact of the matter is, for everybody here, that us trying to push what we believe onto Mongoose and Liberator is no better than them trying to push their beliefs onto us.

Yes, I don't think their arguments are rational or contain any backing, but dragging up past arguments etc is a bit unkind really, let's keep to the debate at hand

Mongoose, without the choice to make mistakes or not, without the ability to make hard, or easy decisions depending on our mood, we are not human. Take that away from us and we become robotica, obeying the will of external forces and never questioning the world around us. Some people cannot live like that I'm afraid

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Mongoose
You know what this board needs?  An actual opposing viewpoint.  This whole board is packed with liberals

You're the ones who support a government that'll force someone's morality on people by legislating it. Don't complain to the rest of us about stifling opinions and views.

[Mongoose]

All right, I'm going to say one last thing here:  I don't believe in these things just because they're Catholic doctrine, and that's not why I want them to become enshrined in law.  I have come to the rational conclusion that what I believe is right and that the opposing viewpoint is wrong.  It's the same process that all of you have taken.  Did all of you know that most religions actually encourage questioning of one's own faith?  You can only truly strengthen faith by reasoning it out.  Thus, all your statements of "blind belief" don't really mean anything.

I'm not asking for an equal number of liberals and conservatives here, but two or three vs. everyone is just a little one-sided, don't you think?  I'm not going to bring other people in here, but I would like to see a little more open-mindedness about opposing viewpoints.  At another game-related forum I frequent, we can have multi-page discussions about religious viewpoints without a single flame or mocking post.  Why can't this board be the same?  I wouldn't mind the content of most of the discussions here if all of the excess flamebait was removed; as things stand now, it seems at times impossible to hold a good, respectful debate.  What's even more absurd is how religious/political subjects get brought up, and subsequently bashed, in threads that have almost nothing to do with either area.  This is why I've always liked the idea of having separate forums for such ethical/political discussion; it helps to keep the spam out.

Flipside, I can't say why many multinational boards are liberal-slanted, nor can I understand why the majority of Europe seems slanted that way.  The one thing I can understand is that, just because the majority of a group of a people believes in somethign, doesn't make it right.  In other words, if you're suggesting that since most of the people of this board hold liberal viewpoints, they're automatically right, I'd vehemently disagree. That's the attitude I've experienced in many threads here, where the majority viewpoint seems to assume its own superiority over the minority and dismisses anything it says as "illogical" or "laughable."  That doesn't make for good debate.

Look, I really like this community; I think it has a unique feeel to it that I haven't experienced anywhere else.  I'd like to be able to have discussions here without getting into shout-fests and insults; unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be able to happen.  I guess the best thing for me to do would be to stick strictly to the Freespace-related forums, but then there would be even less of an alternative voice here; besides, there are some topics that come up that drive me almost to the point of anger and almost necessitate a response for me.  So I guess I'll just keep throwing myself against the brick wall that is this forum; I doubt I'll change anyone's mind or even earn anyone's respect, but I don't have much of a choice, do I?

[Flipside]

Guess why I used the 'winkey' smiley and started the next sentence with 'Seriously though.....'

As for the question, that is what it was, I only really come here these days, but I have noticed that the majority of people who use it have liberal views.

Personally, I don't think I have responded in any way dismissive of your points, but whatever

[Bobboau]

the reason we get all uppety is becase of the fact that laws are being written.
and the fact that absolutley no form of reasoning seems to be able to stop these laws baised on emotion wich are killing our freedom wich we hold above all other things, somewhat tweaks us off a ittle.

"I have come to the rational conclusion that what I believe is right and that the opposing viewpoint is wrong."

ok lets try this one more time, I will not make a personal insult or anything of that nature, from this point on in this thread.

how did you do that?
what is your reasoning?

[Mongoose]

Flipside, I wasn't referring to you specifically, just to what I see as the overall mood of this forum in general.  I would also like to see a good answer to the question you asked, and not just one that says "because Americans are stupid rednecks and the rest of the world has more intelligence."  Historically, what has caused the differences in societal viewpoints between America and Europe/other nations?  Might make for some interesting debate.

Bubbaoau, on which particular viewpoint do you wish me to elaborate?  On cloning, for example?  I would be willing to do that; I just don't want to ramble on about twenty different subjects.

I do take exception with your statement about laws being passed, though.  Along the same lines as my earlier diatribe, some of these laws which you're attributing to "emotion" are actually based on the reasoning of a particular person/people.  These people may not share your reasoning, but don't dismiss the result as a random impulse of emotion.  As for "killing our freedom," I'd also take exception to this statement.  From my viewpoint, I haven't seen any freedoms that have been infringed upon.  As an American citizen, I have the same set of rights now that I did four years ago.  That may not be your opinion, but it is mine.  Also, and I'm not making this statement specifically to you but to the world in general, I think that a lot of people confuse the term "freedom" with "unbridled license."  "Freedom" is not an absolute; in any society, there must necessarily be certain restrictions placed upon it.  For example, obviously no one has the "freedom" to commit rape or murder, even if it is within one's own home.  Likewise, I and some other people believe that such issues as human cloning fall under the same category, as parts of "freedom" that should have restrictions placed upon them.

[Bobboau]

freedom ends at the next person, you can do anything you want so long as it does not cause harm to another person.

with cloneing, lets go right to the realy contiversial one, reproductive cloneing, why would anyone have a problem with this? it's basicly just another way to alow heterosexual married couples who want to raise a child but are for some reaon physicly incapable of doing so, to... do so. how can anyone get anything immoral out of this?

the experimental cloneing will go back to the whole 'when does life begin?' question. same thing for the stem cell ban.
once again, how is it that one cell can be consitered human life?
I can sort of see the point in the last few months of a pregnancy, but somehow someone decided that zygote == human, and I just don't get it.

[Kamikaze]

Mongoose:

Also, and I'm not making this statement specifically to you but to the world in general, I think that a lot of people confuse the term "freedom" with "unbridled license." "Freedom" is not an absolute; in any society, there must necessarily be certain restrictions placed upon it. For example, obviously no one has the "freedom" to commit rape or murder, even if it is within one's own home.

From article linked from marriage thread:

"If those initiatives are part of a broader effort to reaffirm lifetime fidelity in marriage, they're worthwhile," he said. "If they're isolated — if we don't address cohabitation and casual divorce and deliberate childlessness — then I think they're futile and will be brushed aside."

Mongoose:

If you want to know, I agree with that entire article.

Are you saying then the choice to divorce and not have children is not a freedom that a society should grant? That is the sort of thing people have an issue with.

I agree that murder and rape are cases in which there should be no freedom, both cause a lot of harm to others. Why do not having children or to divorce fall under the same category of "not free to do" with murder and rape?

[Mongoose]

No, I don't want to outlaw either divorce or childless marriages.  What I want to do is to decrease their prevalence.  There are some things that shouldn't be legislated and some things that should.  As all of us know too well, the real trick is figuring out what falls under which category.

Bobbaoau, when I get more time tomorrow, I'll post a response that will state my views, at least, on the whole cloning/start of life issue.  I will do my best to ignore any religious overtones and to keep it to straight rationalization.

[Flipside]

hehehehe Don't worry, no hard feelings Mongoose

To a certain degree, I can understand the divorce thing, since I do actually agree that is marriage is some kind of 'bond' that people should be more certain before making the commitment.

As for childless marriages, I look forward to working through that one tonight

Hang on, when did this and the Marriage thread swap roles?