peter1191's forum posts

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

In case you don't know, "Genetic_Code" is that one conservative christain that made that topic attacking liberalism yesterday (or today morning? Sorry I was on vacation so I'm not sure). Anyway, I didn't agree with all his views, but it struck me that much of what he said makes senses, and I can myself point out problems in liberalist philosophy (particularly in the US, since I live here and don't know "liberals" outside of it):

1) Unending assaults on Christianity:

This one really annoys me. We all believe in religious freedom, in the right for someone to choice to follow thee God, or to believe there is no God, and live as they choice. Thats great and all, except when liberals feel the need to attack Christianity at every turn. From attempting to ban all forms of religious expression in schools (I read on the news that a little boy got sent home for drawing a crucifix!), to turning "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays" its unbelievable. In 2005, some guy in Denmark made a cartoon insulting Muhammad. I personally have a muslim friend (liberal herself) who was appalled. And rightfully so. Yet in the middle east churches were burned and some christians killed, where for all we know the cartoon could have been published by an atheist (I forgot who did it exactly, so forgive me if I'm wrong). Now, where is the religious freedom? You can't insult hinduism, islam, judiaism, or any oriental religion, hell any native american religion, but Christianity, one of the basis for western society, is beat down at every turn. And this leads to my second point:

2) Misinterpretation of separation of church and state:

We are all taught in grade school or high school important things our country did over its history, often given to us in honeyed words and patriotic ferver. One of these important "things" is the separation of church and state that took place in the 1780s-1790s when Thomas Jefferson had states end their support of state-churches. I believe that this separation-where the state is unaffiliated with the church and does not control it, and vice versa-is one of the most beautiful things about this country. NO LONGER CAN ANY ONE VIEW DOMINATE ANOTHER! But that DOES NOT MEAN, as it has come to mean in the 1960s, that religion should be pulverized from the public sphere. So what if we say "In God we trust?" So what if the supreme court has the Ten Commandments hanging from its walls? Who cares if Christmas invovles a baby Jesus (which was and is its intended "reason for the season")? Why is their such a hate for religion in the public sphere? I though religious freedom meant we all have the freedom to choice or reject? Why is it that when citizens want to express themselves, w/o imposing on another their views, are they dejected? Separation of church and state does not mean that any interaction therein by one's religion and one's political or social views is dangerous: all it means is that NO ONE CHURCH CAN DOMINATE THE GOVERNMENT, NOR ONE VIEW!!!! Not any religion, any social theory, and philosophical approach! What has happened to this idea of separation of church and state? Why has it become a playground of mulitcultural lunacy? Speaking of which.......

3) Insistence on Muliculturalism

Now, I'm all for being a global citizen. But I want to know that I have my feet planned "at home." Liberals have this incessent need to pretend like the US has no culture outside the accepting, secular, and at all times universal. Forget "Merry Christmas" for a second. Liberals somehow believe that we do not have to force immigrants to learn english. No, we should adapt to them by learning spanish! Well thats just dandy, except for the fact that my family has emmigrated from egypt, and we have arabic and english under our belt. Another language to learn at this point is absurd. And pointless. Shouldn''t I come to a country and except to integrate to its way of life w/o compromising my views? Whats compromising about learning to speak a different language? Are you going to go to paris and complain why they all speak french!?

And here is a point Genetic_Code hit on: moral relativity. It would seem that "moral relativity" only applies to other's views. As for theres, anyone whose rich has to pay more taxes, anyone who is poor/drop out is in general always the victim of a "corrupt" and "weak" and "unfair' system (aka capitalism). Now, I'm all for a progressive tax (a consumer tax, in my opinion, best forces the rich to pay taxes rather than look for loopholes). However, it would seem that this is how they view the world. Not in truth, but in their own lens. Why, they are just as ready to say (in advocacy for minorities) that a lack of a father figure has broken down many households, yet by that same token can easily say that homosexual relationships can lead to a stable enviornment for raising kids. Its all absurd. Abortion is "right" b/c your just killing a "collection of cells." WOW! WHAT A REVELATION! Imagine, can't you say that about EVERY LIVING THING IN EXISTENCE? I'm just a collection of cells, and when one nerve fires and the sodium and potassium pumps do their stuff, i feel pain. But its really just a bunch of cells, so my death is meaningless.

Now, I recognize the ability of liberals to really help society (aka I'm not some Rush or Glen Beck). When conservatives underrepresent minorities, there are always advocacy groups on the other side. Whenever conservatives get too patriotic or militaristic, liberals demand peace and moral authority (ironically, as it turns out). They always point out what needs to be improved in a society. But their philosophy just reeks of weakness and contradiction. I just had to put that out there. For a view that prides itself on being "academic" or for the well educated, it seems to be horribly in-cohesive

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

You'll enjoy the game, but one its own merits only. Its far different from the first two games in the series, which is a shame considering I loved the first one and never got to play the second

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"]Yes, but the mother would be a victim, and will be carrying a child that looked like her rapist. If I were a woman, I would feel extremely disgusted that I would have to carry that child. Wouldn't you?MrGeezer

Probably, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that my feelings would justify MURDERING AN INNOCENT BABY.

Hey, personally I am "pro-choice" (I hate stupid labels). But I think that whatever stance you have, at least be consistent. If one wants to characterize abortion as the murder of innocent babies, then at what point do you decide that it's okay to murder an innocent baby, but only as long as it was the product of rape? It's still an innocent baby, it still deserves just as much of a chance at life as any other not-yet-born person, and the mom can go through 9 months of emotional agony in order to KEEP FROM MURDERING A FEAKING BABY.

You've hit on a touchy point here. Most pro-life advocates want to avoid having abortion as a recreational thing (we just go out, have sex, get pregnanent, then dispose of life). However, justifications exist for what is essentially the killing of this baby. A child that is an offspring of, for example, a father and his daughter, is not only scarred for life from this incest, but can be born with a (slightly) higher chance of defects and is usually born to a young daughter that has been separated from any means of supporting herself (after all, her father is probably in jail by now). I agree with you that a child is a child, and if I was a women I wouldn't abort despite the situation, but some concessions have to be made. Society is not perfect, after all

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

[QUOTE="hydralisk86"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

Well, if we accept that abortions are "murder", then that doesn't change just because the "baby's" father was a rapist.

MuddVader

Yes, but the mother would be a victim, and will be carrying a child that looked like her rapist. If I were a woman, I would feel extremely disgusted that I would have to carry that child. Wouldn't you?

That would be sick for society to force a woman to carry the child of a man who raped her... She would never be able to look that child in the face without thinking of him..

I agree. Abortions should be legal in cases of danger to the mother (physically), rape, or incest. Otherwise its recreational and should not be tolerated.

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

[QUOTE="xXDante666Xx"]

I agree with an earlier poster.

She is committing and act of murder against another human being, premeditated to. So jail time. The man was a knowing accomplice as well, so he should to. Jk, but something of the like.

MuddVader

So. Do you know my sister? She has 3 kids. Shes a drug addict, all 3 babies have different fathers, she hardly takes care of them, and currently has an arrest warrant out for her. If she were to get pregnant again, is it not only sensible for her to get an abortion? Or would it really be better for her either to have it and my parents get stuck with yet another child when my father is over 50, or the child being put into the system? Or an even better example, is her friend, she has 7 kids. She has custody of none. About half I think are old enough to care for themselves but her parents have always taken care of her kids because she is the same as my sister. All children from different fathers, shes a drug addict, she drinks. Anyways, she is pregnant again, right now! Would it not be for the best for her to get an abortion? Abortions can be seen as murder, but sometimes it's just what needs to be done..

I completely see what you mean, and i'm not denying it, but every life is an opportunity. Thats the simple fact that counters your logic. Because what you say is not only sound, but it is (out of all "pro abortion" arguments) the strongest statement, that of a burden to society. Yes, these kids have the liklihood of ending up like their mother, but there is no guarantee. Just like it is your sister who has taken a turn for the worst-not you-should your parents have aborted? They could not see the future. And neither can you. Your logic is impeccible, make no mistake, and what you say is true: but the idealism in all this is that things can take a turn for the better. Nothing is permanent, nothing is set in stone; perhaps your sister will change, and her children find greater opportunity as a result

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

[QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

[QUOTE="yarou1000"] i know u joke, but if anything liek this ever happened i would lose faith in humanity....aransom

Seriously though there is logic behind my madness. People kill monkeys all the time and know one really cares. A 3 year old is about as intelligent as a monkey. So by my logic i don't really care if we kill either. and ban them both from public areas like super markets of shopping malls.

Heinrich Himler had a lamp with a shade made from human skin, that he kept in his study. Where do you keep yours?

Yea, that dude is insane. There is no logic to your madness. Its just madness. Have you left your house in the last decade? Or do you plan on starting a family? Obviously not, since to you the life of a baby is disposable rather than precious. Hell parents kill just to keep their baby save from harm, and you......think their monkeys? Tell me, Mr. logical, if a baby has the same potential as a monkey, or are we just blabbering to a guy who doesn't value life? THere is a place for people like you: insane asylums

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

Yes its so annoying! Speak truth about any group in the US: white, black, yellow, tan, green, even freakin sky blue, and your a racist! I hate liberalism here, it seeks to stifle any constructive criticism or speech, which is why (despite the evils for the past 8 years) I am more republican than democrat. At least I can say what I want to say

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

For those 9/11 conspirators.....some 70 years ago a particular nation thought that there was some abstract, large, international, conspiracy by a particular group of people called the Jews. Why, it made sense: they were (mostly) all rich, they had the small businesses, the large banks, etc, while the rest of the population suffered from the Depression. So to do away with this obvious malicious intent by this group of people, a particular man which a disposition for the fine arts Hitler managed to create a "Final Solution" to save his people from the wrath & cunning of the Jews, although they could not pin point a particular plan of the conspirators or their reasons for doing what they are doing. Likewise some people, refusing to accept (or wanting to accept the alternative) that some Islamic extremists destroyed two large towers, and instead attributing the ingenious plan to the US government (I thought left-wing liberals thought the US government was dumb and ineffective as it is now?) and thereby attaching the abstract word of "conspiracy" to a group that few liked from the beginning, but now everyone can "rightfully" hate with a passion.

JudgementEden

Actually, I was neutral with the government. I never truly hated them until I studied, A LOT. Also, I dont believe the Jews run the world either. Also, Hitler was not killing Jews because of what you said, it goes much deeper than that.

No, study history. You wanna believe there was a better reason for killing the Jews, but it was nothing more then centuries of prejudice & a weakened & humiliated German population. Same can be said now. You would actaully be neutral about the government if you posed to yourself some obvious questions about how a conspiracy of this magnitude be carried out in a democratic society completely secretly, & even if it was possible, why did this Islamic Extremists go along with the US government (in iraq, for example) and start an insurgency. Whose Osama? An appendge of the US? Really, this whole conversation is idiotic. When you get right down to it, any possible benefit for the government is outweighed by risk and pain for attacking itself. Not to mention that ppl in this country generally take up jobs of politican b/c they want to serve, & it is only when the pressure (or greed) is too much that they rob the people. But no one, NO ONE, kills their own people unless it is to maintain their rule. And trust me, the US wasn't in danger of falling apart before 2001.

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

For those 9/11 conspirators.....some 70 years ago a particular nation thought that there was some abstract, large, international, conspiracy by a particular group of people called the Jews. Why, it made sense: they were (mostly) all rich, they had the small businesses, the large banks, etc, while the rest of the population suffered from the Depression. So to do away with this obvious malicious intent by this group of people, a particular man which a disposition for the fine arts Hitler managed to create a "Final Solution" to save his people from the wrath & cunning of the Jews, although they could not pin point a particular plan of the conspirators or their reasons for doing what they are doing. Likewise some people, refusing to accept (or wanting to accept the alternative) that some Islamic extremists destroyed two large towers, and instead attributing the ingenious plan to the US government (I thought left-wing liberals thought the US government was dumb and ineffective as it is now?) and thereby attaching the abstract word of "conspiracy" to a group that few liked from the beginning, but now everyone can "rightfully" hate with a passion.

Avatar image for peter1191
peter1191

591

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

4

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 peter1191
Member since 2005 • 591 Posts

It has been in the news lately with the new amendment being proposed to the Healthcare bill to deny coverage on abortion proceedures.

Now it has seem that there is this divide in regards to - does one support a bill that could indirectly (or directly) fund abortion proceedures or allow an amendment that impedes on that "choice" (assuming that it is not a life threatening situation).

Thoughts?

Source

Sajedene

Abortion is definitely not a right, nor is taking a unborn baby's life, so I am in full support of said amendment