Retribution

[quote name='Nerdsy'][color=deeppink][u]When [i]does[/i] a blastocyst become a human life, and why is that line any less arbitrary than conception?[/u][/color][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I'll chip in my two cents, even though no one asked me. I have absolutely no idea when life begins. Perhaps there is a definitional problem going on -- if we are to say "life begins at conception," does that mean we should start celebrating our birthdays nine months in advance of our actual birth? Is the nature of life different in a born human and an embryo? Are we prepared to say that aborting a (perhaps one day old) zygote is tantamount to murder of a 10 year old? Personally, I think that line of reasoning is a bit too radical and literalist. I do not believe my shooting a 10 year old is equivalent to a woman taking the morning after pill (which, while classified as a "contraceptive" can destroy the embryo) and "aborting" her "baby." But I'll also say that putting the marker at some stage of embryonic development is arbitrary.[/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]Do not presume to lecture me [...] I resent your labels.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Sorry, it's just that when I read "DONT LABEL ME" it's coming from an insecure high schooler. [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="times new roman"]But since you have consistently decided to argue the "liberal" position and indeed belong to what some on the right have termed the "culture of death," I suppose you might as well enjoy it.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Absolutely! I love my liberal, dangerous, un-Christian culture of death.[/font]

[quote name='Aaryanna'][COLOR="DarkGreen"][FONT="Book Antiqua"]Uh... no one. Seriously. I like people here... but... [B]NO WAY IN HELL[/B]. [B]._. [/B][/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]You only say that because your mom's reading this. (and would discuss it with you at dinner)[/font]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]Why is it disturbing? Why make the baby suffer? who's in the pro-life camp?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]You're in the pro-life camp if you're against abortion, generally speaking. This is to say that you believe abortion should not be legal. This also includes people who want to make exception for extenuating circumstances (rape, incest, death of mother, etc). I find it a radical position to not allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. While I understand the distaste one might have with abortion, it's almost ([I]almost[/I]) surprising that people would choose to put the rights of the mother below those of the unborn fetus. However I still applaud those who take up this position -- it's very consistent and thus rather difficult to rhetorically attack aside from the notion of "personal opinions." You ask "why make the baby suffer?" One could ask: why make the mother suffer an unwanted pregnancy? It's these questions that don't really get the dialogue anywhere. For instance, I don't really think the "baby" suffers when aborted before it has the ability to feel pain. And for the record, it's a "fetus" until after 8 weeks. [quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]And I also resent being thrown into a camp that is labeled simply as "pro life." Like most things, there are degrees of people who are liberal and conservative, angry and not angry, okay with group politics and not okay with group politics.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Unfortunately (fortunately?) group politics is a reality. Welcome to America. While people do exist on a continuum of belief, one is labeled based on where they fall on that spectrum. Sorry you take issue with that, but your views land you squarely within what is considered by the vast majority of America (and the world) to be "pro life." Similarly, you would be considered to be a "conservative" in America.[/font]

[quote name='Esther'][FONT="Franklin Gothic Medium"][SIZE="1"]What's with all the bashing of Fox News? It's obvious that Fox News has a conservative slant just as much as MSNBC/MSNBC/CBS are part of the liberal media elite therefore, leaning towards the left.[/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Because Faux News hired Bill O'Reilly. He's simply a terrible newscaster -- rather than inviting people onto his show to have a discussion with them (like JIM LEHRER's News Hour), O'Reilly throws a tantrum at his guests, shouting and screaming the entire conversation. It's honestly ridiculous.[/font]

[font=Arial]I support the right of every woman to choose. I don't think third trimester abortions should be allowed, and generally I don't see why a woman would wait so long to get an abortion. While I find it disturbing there are people who think abortion should not be allowed in cases of rape and incest, I also applaud them for their consistency of belief. I wonder what the pro-life camp on OB thinks about contraception. Should it be promoted as a means of decreasing abortion, or should it be rejected as a means of stopping (and in some cases prematurely ending) the growth of a fetus?[/font]

[font=Arial]I will cast my vote for Obama. I cannot fathom four more years of neo-conservatism. They've had their chance for the past eight years, and they've done a great job at the helm. Time to let lucid, meditative, insightful leadership have a chance. Obama's polling ahead in all polls at this moment (even Fox), it's just a matter of how large the margin is. However I'm still ridiculously worried for him -- there's no way to really tell how (or if) the Bradley Effect will mangle his chances.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph']Since you seem to be quite eager for an argument, [COLOR=DarkRed]Reri[/COLOR], despite the situation, how about you give [COLOR=DarkRed]James[/COLOR] a rest and poke at me for a while? I've certainly got some points I want to talk about that I didn't have time to discuss over my break.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Sounds good... but I didn't even get my T thrown in my name? :( :( :( [QUOTE]To deny the truth, [I]any truth[/I], is intellectually dishonest. And in this context, the truth is that Islam as a religion [I]and[/I] a culture is very warlike, and has been for millennia. It's not hatred or fear or loathing I speak from. Merely observation.[/QUOTE] I object to calling Islam as a religion "warlike" just as I object to calling Christianity as a religion "warlike." As I mentioned earlier, there is a difference between the religion and the religion as it is practiced. Islam is not the religion of warmongering, it's simply been used to justify such conquests. Likewise, Christianity is a very pacifistic religion, but it's been used to justify conquests. Simply because the mouthpieces of the religion are violent does not make the religion (interpreted with fidelity to the spirit of the words) violent. So if someone wanted to use Paul to justify slavery, that'd be ridiculous... it would be ignoring ALL of Jesus' teachings where he tells us to love our fellow man. Similarly, it would be ridiculous to take a passage out of the Quran and say it constitutes a warlike religion. [QUOTE]But then you want to counter not by promoting the peaceful nature of Islam that you might have seen, but the violence of another? What did you hope to accomplish? A change of topic? Me to reflexively defend my faith as pure and honorable, despite a clear history of power abuse? To do so would have been intellectually dishonest as well.[/QUOTE] I brought up Christianity as a reminding note to you that Christians (or at least those who call themselves so), too, have been "warlike." However that does not make the religion itself warlike. [QUOTE]My point with my information about Islam was to point out the degree that religious justification can be used to do ill. You are proving alongside me that such misuse of religion is common. And yet you still cry foul against me?[/QUOTE] I cry foul when you call the religion "warlike" based off the actions of the followers. That is a misuse of the religion. That is a misinterpretation of the religion. [QUOTE]Until I may speak freely of my faith here on these boards without immediately losing all my credibility and without immediately being attacked by those who feel themselves above such 'crutch-leaning', do not presume—no, do not [U]dare[/U] to tell me I cannot speak of another faith, no matter how negative.[/QUOTE] No one's censoring your posts, and your arguments show that you're not "crutch-leaning" -- you speak for yourself. Further, I didn't disparage your religion, I simply pointed out its past. I didn't call your religion warlike, either. I pointed out the violent history associated with Christianity, but at the same time, I acknowledge that is not "real" Christianity. [QUOTE]First of all, I said nothing about creating [I]any[/I] dichotomy of thinking. My words were that I wished to bring an [I]understanding of Islam to the playing field[/I]. Whether people agree or disagree does not bother me, so long as they understand.[/QUOTE] The creation was implicit in your Islam/Christian or East/West divide in your previous post. I don't know why you're really taking issue with that, either... I didn't [i]criticize[/i] you for doing it, haha. [QUOTE]However, I would question what you know about the "wildly varying" doctrines of Islam.[/QUOTE] They perceive themselves as varying... or at least I would assume as much so long as there is Shi'a-Sunni violence (Iraq a few months ago, anyone?). Do you see Episcopalians and Methodists attacking one another? Do you see animosity between Baptists and Catholics? Not really, or at least not to the same degree you see in the modern Middle East. This is why I call modern Christianity more unified than Islam. [QUOTE]Given the shallow understanding of the Christian community which you have displayed thus far, I think perhaps that you might be relying a little much on what the media has told you about Islam, and not searched for yourself.[/QUOTE] Wow, I misinterpret one passage and now I don't understand the Christian community? After being a Christian the vast majority of my life? [QUOTE]The only item that comes to mind immediately for me is that there are indeed different sects of Islam, and some of the Islamic doctrines quite conflict with each other (again, the same has been claimed for Christianity, so please do not waste your breath bringing [I]that[/I] tired subject up), but aside from that....[/QUOTE] That's exactly what I was referring to originally. Christianity [i]was divided in the past[/i] but by and large is no longer. At least not to the point where there is violence between different sects. [QUOTE]My comments about 'diverse' and 'unified' were spoken directly to the mindset of the West versus the mindset of the Middle East respectively. I even explicitly stated so. If you did not understand, then perhaps...[/QUOTE] I don't know why you assume I didn't understand... but whatever. [QUOTE]The point I was driving at [I]there[/I] was that, as I said in several previous instances, no matter where you go Islam is Islam. And while that sounds initially to be a vast, blatantly sweeping over-generalisation, bear in mind that I am recognising the distinct differences in culture from even Jordan to Turkey, and surely the Western European countries. Despite those differences, as I illustrated with the single student example (though I have others), the thinking [I]inside the Islamic faith[/I] is the same—and at the same time as they are stabbing tables demanding a death sentence they are claiming that there is no violence in Islam.[/QUOTE] First of all, I took issue with the anecdotal evidence of Islam being "warlike" when the vast majority of American Muslims are not nearly as radical as your aforementioned student. If they were, we'd have a serious problem on our hands. Secondly, that ridiculous student does not represent Islam anymore than a Christian who wants to "kill towelheads." Both are missing the larger point of their religions, which is human unity. So I really didn't appreciate such a radical example, especially when I could turn to a member of your faith who exhibits radical views and claim them to be a poster boy of Christianity. [QUOTE]That is a [I]unified[/I] mindset.[/QUOTE] In some respect, yes. But I would still say Christianity is much less polarized than Islam is at this juncture. [QUOTE]Have you never been to a Christian rally, where forty-thousand young adults are singing praise songs at the top of their lungs? Would it surprise you to know that perhaps one percent of those students sing that passionately in their own churches, if that many? So while I claim that Islam is a unified community, that unification is forged even stronger in their homeland, where they have the support of thousands like themselves.[/QUOTE] The funny thing is, I have attended those types of Christian rallies. I would say that unity within sects is strong, but between sects (and still under the same faith) there is much less unity than there is in Christianity between sects. [QUOTE]Contrariwise, here stateside we value diversity and the freedom to think as you will. (And love as thou wilt, but that's both a fictional D'Angeline reference and irrelevant.) As a direct result, it is [I]required[/I] that we first as a whole [I]agree [/I]to take action before we can take action and hope to be effective. Remember the Articles of Confederation? How badly they failed? That failure was due to a heavy balance of power to the states, and little to the central Federal government; as a direct result, a financial crisis in Massachusetts escalated to armed conflict (granted, one shot was fired), while the Federal government was impotent to act or authorise anything. Our lack of unity paralysed us, and the Articles were immediately repealed.[/QUOTE] Then perhaps we aren't talking of Christian unity, but um... harmony? I think we might be getting caught up in misunderstood terms. Or maybe I assumed unity was equal to harmony. [QUOTE]Certainly diversity has led us to great progress as a nation and a culture, but at the same time it causes a certain hiccup in our actions should we want to move to do anything; think of how long a case spends in litigation before the Supreme Court finally decides to even see it, let alone rewrite national policy for it. And then when our leaders [I]do[/I] act decisively, the uproar is enormous . . . as you yourself have demonstrated with your views on the current occupation.[/QUOTE] I don't think diversity means disunity, but maybe that's another point we'll have to agree to disagree on. [QUOTE]Finally, I wonder at the relevance of pointing out the 'unity' of Christianity at all. We are [I]certainly[/I] not a completely Christian nation (else I think you'd be having an eternal aneurysm), while the Middle East is [I]decidedly[/I] Muslim. Which returns me to my initial point: in order to successfully interact with that culture, we [I]must[/I] at least partially abandon our own 'superior' way of thinking, and come to at least partially understand theirs—which they believe to be superior to ours.[/QUOTE] I didn't meant unified in a national sense, but a theological sense. [QUOTE]And that is what I have been attempting to do with every post I've submitted. Yet you still cry [I]j'accuse![/I] Should we then ignore any negative slants on a religion or a culture? Or should we delve to the truth, no matter the ugliness that emerges?[/QUOTE] Let's not ignore negativity that arises, but let's not paint the entire faith as "warlike" as a result of fundamentalist followers. Christianity was fundamentalist not so long ago, but that's a phase the religion outgrew. The religion endured, the radicalism did not. This is why I conclude that religions are generally not warlike, but the followers can be. [QUOTE]Yes, yes, [I]yes[/I]. That is another strength the Middle East has over the West: they educate their children in their beliefs early and thoroughly. With our appreciation for diversity and finding one's own way, we cannot hope to match that strength of unity.[/QUOTE] I don't know how this is a strength -- if anything, I'd call it a weakness. The refusal to entertain opposing points of view because one is set in personal ideology gets us nowhere. Progress is built upon people willing to at least walk in another's shoes for a mile. So if everyone is simply indoctrinated and homogenized, how will things move forward? PS: Cheers, James, on the rigorous debate.[/font]

[font=Arial][quote name='James']No, it isn't. Do you have any idea of the number of decisions that are taken internationally that are "unilateral"? Not everything has to go through committee.[/QUOTE] Fair enough, but let's not act like US had widespread support for their decision to invade. We summarily dismissed the international community, deciding to invade in the wake of some of the most massive protests in history. The US had no reason or obligation to take the invasion of Iraq [almost entirely] upon its own back, and that's probably the biggest qualm I have with the entire debacle. [QUOTE]In addition to that, it's worth pointing out that the U.S.'s action was not unilateral. They were supported by a number of other countries - and not just those who directly participated. There were also a number of Middle Eastern countries that openly supported the action, because they recognized that it helped to ensure their own safety long-term.[/QUOTE] Sure, but with the exception of the UK and KDP/PUK, there were negligible troop contributions. So yes, it was a "multilateral" invasion, but in name only. By and large, the burden was shouldered primarily by the US, in terms of troops, money, and responsibility. It was wrong of our administration to act in such a manner. [QUOTE]Furthermore, the numbers you quoted are misleading because you don't mention the fact that [i]many[/i] of those deaths are a direct result of the insurgency movement within Iraq (which itself was a result largely of foreign fighters who are [i]enemies[/i] of the Iraqi people).[/QUOTE] Not even a tenth of the total violent deaths are insurgents. The vast majority of those deaths are civilians killed in the crossfire that would have never materialized had there been no invasion. Furthermore, the numbers I gave are probably pitifully low at this point, as those were taken from a survey in mid-2007. [QUOTE]The amount of money spent is one thing (because I think some of that is a result of inefficiencies and so on). But, fundamentally, the question is whether or not it was the right thing to do - despite the inefficiencies and poor decision making involved, I am pleased with the fact that 50 million people are now free. So I think the net result is positive.[/QUOTE] Easy to say, when your government isn't the one wasting your tax money. It's great that they're now free, but at what cost? Sure, 50 million people are no longer under a dictator, but their lives, and the region, have newer and perhaps more intense instability ahead. [QUOTE]The big thing that changed was the lack of discovery of WMDs. But that is almost a non-issue and has been misrepresented in the ways I mentioned before.[/QUOTE] According to Bush, the reasons for the invasion were: "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." ([url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030322.html]link[/url]) Call that a "non-issue," but when the entire reason for war is laid out in terms like that, I have a tough time dismissing it as a "non-issue." Do note there is [i]absolutely no mention[/i] of Saddam's violation of international law. So yes, legally there was grounds for the invasion. However it's like being indicted for theft when you were instead a murderer -- you're still going to jail, but the justification is vastly different. [QUOTE]Having said that, I still don't believe that the media sold the war in general terms. There was a very quick turnaround on that. Many media outlets became visciously opposed to the war very early on. I do read and watch quite a bit of American media, so I'm familiar with how they operate.[/QUOTE] It wasn't really until it set in that, surprise, the war wasn't going to be a few months long. [QUOTE]I also think it's worth pointing out that many media outlets were initially working on the same intelligence basis as the Bush Administration. The existence of large stockpiles was ultimately incorrect, but I think it was unfortunate that the media emphasized this aspect while ignoring the many other violations of U.N. Resolutions.[/QUOTE] I find it disappointed that not only the media, but by and large even the government failed to use that as a justification for war. At the very least, it would've been more salient. [QUOTE]I think that's a horribly irresponsible thing to say. It really is. How on Earth can you make that judgment? You're implying that the entire U.S. Congress made a war declaration based on revenge and racism alone. Do you know what is involved with these kinds of actions? There's a ton of work that goes on in committees that specialize in intelligence and foreign affairs. To reduce the action to these simple terms totally misunderstands the entire process.[/QUOTE] No, the Congress made a decision based on their constituents desires and wishes -- they simply represented the voices of Americans. It was the common citizen who was heavily in support of the invasion. You are correct when you say most people are horribly uninformed, because to them, there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam. And yes, it was sold as such by the administration -- that there was some global network of terror through which Saddam and bin Laden collaborated in a dark basement somewhere to blow people up. 9/11 was a selling point for the war, and that was a really sad thing, to justify the invasion based on something totally unrelated. (And I mean for god's sake, people were calling them "Freedom Fries!" here in opposition to the French over the entire thing) [QUOTE]Just because you have an impression that most people just wanted to "get the Arabs" or whatever doesn't make it so. I remember there being a great deal of discussion, debate and analysis in the lead up - especially as part of Congressional proceedings.[/QUOTE] Sure, but they also claimed they "knew" there were WMDs. That's why when Hans Blix adamantly denied that, we gave him the finger and invaded anyway, claiming that he was wrong. Turns out Blix had the right information, and the US/President/Congress had the wrong information. So their deliberations were full of sound and fury, and based on ridiculous pigheadedness. [QUOTE]But who reads the longer articles explaining the details I've mentioned? Apparently you don't and I'm sure most people don't bother to read anything at all.[/QUOTE] Excusing the fact I was in 8th grade when we were invading... I read the major news outlets, and there was much talk of WMDs, and almost no mention of 1991 and the previous UN Resolutions. Seriously James, 2003 was a big failure in substantive media coverage for places like NYT, LAT, and WashPost. [QUOTE]I don't think it's as cut-and-dry as that. I don't think Bush ever said that America would be on its merry way once Saddam was deposed, lol.[/QUOTE] Not in those words, but he (and those in support of the invasion) said it would be a relatively quick thing. If you had told anyone back then that we'd be there in 2008, they would've laughed at you. [QUOTE]But secondly, there's no historical perspective here. Do you know that the U.S. was in Germany and Japan for around a decade after WWII? Occupations are never easy [i]or[/i] short.[/QUOTE] I know -- and we still have military presence in both countries. The thing is, it wasn't originally intended to be an occupation, or if it was, it was meant to be abbreviated. I'm also bitter at the administration's disingenuousness when it came to the duration of our occupation. They definitely said it would be a quick thing. [QUOTE]Still, I think there's a slight generational thing going on here. You're basically telling me that just because the situation didn't work out exactly as it was sold, the whole effort is useless. If Governments ran with that attitude towards everything, nothing would [i]ever[/i] be achieved.[/QUOTE] I never said useless, I said unfair, disingenuous, poorly planned, shortsighted, and incompetent. Perhaps something good will come of it now that we're already there, but if given a chance I would have voted against the decision to invade. I just feel it did little to benefit anyone, and did a great deal of damage to all parties involved. [QUOTE]My point was that the late actions of the Allied forces allowed the Holocaust to progress as it did. I'm not saying the Allies knew about the extent of it at the time.[/QUOTE] The US has generally operated based on its own rational self-interest, and to fight against Hitler in its early stages made little sense from this philosophy's perspective. That's how all countries generally operate. Also, I'm not sure it's a fair comparison to make. By your logic, we should always act immediately because there [i]could[/i] be something terrible going on unbeknownst to us. Fast action is not always best action.[/font]

[quote name='James']Well it's never the "U.N." that invades - it's just a question of whether the forces are invading on behalf of the U.N. or not.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Isn't it a matter of acting in a multilateral fashion, with the blessing of the international community? The US did neither in 2003. [QUOTE]I suppose it depends how important the "killing of a few thousand citzens" is to you. It's very important to me and obviously very important to the millions of people living in Iraq.[/QUOTE] Absolutely. But 5,000 killed under Saddam is a drop in the bucket when compared to 500,000 killed in the invasion (conservative estimate -- many others range up to 1 million). The invasion caused vastly more loss of life than under Saddam. [QUOTE]Moreover, that was not the sole purpose for the invasion. As stated above, there were legal compliance reasons, reasons related to humanitarian causes within the country [i]and[/i] there were genuine concerns about Iraq's potential to threaten its neighbors in future.[/QUOTE] I'm aware of the legal/compliance reasons, but the infraction of those did not call for the US jumping into such a massive hole, and largely alone. The amount of money spent on this war is ridiculous, to say the least. [QUOTE]You're honestly surprised? Where were you when 9/11 happened? I don't think you recognize the incredible importance of that event and how it changed strategic thinking all over the world.[/QUOTE] How does 9/11 change the fundamental chain of events that would occur had we invaded Baghdad? 9/11 was the impetus, but it wouldn't have changed anything on the ground in Iraq. [QUOTE]First of all, I don't think the war was ever really "sold" by the media. Many within the media were against the prospect of a war from day one.[/QUOTE] Perhaps in Australia, but even papers such as the New York Times were beating the war drum. It was sickeningly irresponsible journalism coming form the Op-Ed pages, and that coverage profoundly shifted public opinion in support of invasion. Go search the archives for yourself -- Washington Post, LA Times, or NY Times, they all thought an invasion was justified. Most of our Congress voted for invasion, as well. It was a bloodthirsty climate we were in, and because we failed to turn up bin Laden, the Americans wanted another scapegoat. Iraq became American's vent for the rage of 9/11. People saw it as punishing the "same people" (i.e. Arabs) for the attacks. [QUOTE]But in addition, the WMD issue centered around [i]both[/i] the potential to uncover existing stockpiles [i]and[/i] the removal of Iraq's [b]capacity[/b] for further production. This can be hard for the media to communicate in a thirty second soundbyte![/QUOTE] It's not too difficult to write in a multi-page article (online or print). Iraq had stopped the production of WMDs years ago, and we found no WMD stockpiles. We found stockpiles of other weaponry, but those weren't what we originally invaded for. [QUOTE]If we'd gone to Iraq and taken out any WMDs that we found and then left, I'm sure a lot of people would have been happy. But they'd have been highly short-sighted as well.[/QUOTE] James, that's what the war was sold as! Bush told everyone it would be a swift incision into the country, we'd find the weapons, destroy them, depose Saddam, and be on our merry way. There was no realistic timeline, and once we got into Bagdad, we soon realized we weren't leaving anytime soon. [QUOTE]But my god, you'd really be jumping up and down if you lived through World War II, where millions died and where the all-too-late military actions of the Allies gave Hitler time to begin the Holocaust in earnest. In that case we may have been late and the casualties may have been high, but thank god we actually took action.[/QUOTE] We had no idea of the scope of the Holocaust until we were actually liberating concentration camps. We knew of civil repression, but really didn't understand how terrible the Nazi machine was. Furthermore, we certainly didn't invade to "stop the Holocaust." That's a fairy tale fed by the winners of the war -- we invaded [i]only after Japan attacked us,[/i] and to help our allies against an aggressive opponent.[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']You have made the mistake of making a claim, then requiring your opponent to prove it otherwise, or else it is true. That logic doesn't fly. Science assumes [u]nothing[/u] about a designer. Not an existence. Not an in-existence. It does this because it is incapable of doing anything else.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Alright, I'll grant you this -- science assumes nothing about a designer. Those supporting intelligent design still carry the burden of proof. I would hope critical thinkers remain unconvinced of an intelligent designer (or at least do not claim it to be a testable hypothesis, and a matter of personal faith). To do otherwise would be like claiming Zeus is throwing the bolts of lightening that strike the earth.[/font]

[font=Arial]Alright, valid points, but by your logic [i]the UN[/i] should have invaded. Iraq broke international law and was openly belligerent to UN forces. I fail to see why the US decided to [in large part] unilaterally invade. While Iraq did perform illegal actions, I do not think the situation called for a hastily conceived invasion. There are situations that call for the mobilization of America, and there are situations that do not -- I believe the Iraq War to fall in the latter category. If the US invaded every time there was a dictator killing a few thousand of his own citizens, we'd be all over the place. It's simply an unrealistic precedent to set, and therefore a poor criterion for invasion. I'm also a bit more skeptical of our leader's nobility/selflessness in invading Iraq. You've probably seen [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY][b]this video[/b][/url] of Cheney rattling off reasons why we shouldn't have invading Baghdad in the first war. I'm surprised to see a 180 degree change of heart. Additionally, I think we lose sight of our original intentions in invading. The invasion was sold by media and the administration as a foray specifically to uncover [i]allegedly known[/i] weapons facilities (WMDs). It was only once we failed to uncover any that the administration changed pace and called it a war of liberation and democratization... and this seems to be the image most people have now of the conflict. I suppose I don't think the US invasion of Iraq was worth the civilian life (approx. hundreds of thousands), nor the monetary cost of war, nor the international damage to our reputation.[/font]

[quote name='Sabre']Nigerian banking scams are always good for a laugh. Being asked to launder an amount of money twice the GDP of many small countries, well, you wonder just how gullible people are, to believe that some bajillionaire wants to put money into your bank account.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Yeah, I'm of a similar opinion. Ever tried luring them? 419eater.com Many lulz to be shared![/font]

[quote name='James']I find it ironic that people can classify themselves as "anti-war", as if those who support military action are "pro-war". I gurantee, very few people are actually "pro-war".[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Well, I would say that at least in the US, there are certainly pro-war people. The general conception is that whomever we cross swords with will surely lose, so "bring 'em on." This is not to say that everyone here wants war all the time, but our population definitely gets bloodthirsty. Most were decidedly pro-war for Afghanistan, and most were decidedly pro-war for Iraq as well. [QUOTE]I personally supported the military action against Iraq, but I'm certainly not in favor of war as a general idea.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. As for the support for the invasion of Iraq -- why? Are you still in support of the invasion?[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Sex is a very important aspect in a culture, and reflects the nature of the culture, along with any of the problems it may have. It is similar to eating in this aspect. If everyone in a population is willingly anorexic, this reflects a problem. The issue that causes problems in sex is also related to the issue that is caused by problems in sex. It is similar to how an anorexic nation will affect their families, friends, work force, and food industry with their current status. The important aspect isn't the actual action itself. The biggest problem comes with why it is something is done the way it is done.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Because mainstream scientific research has generally concluded that being gay [i]is not a choice[/i], I think this is a problematic point you make. If sexual orientation is not a choice, it is impossible to influence it via cultural dynamics, therefore the new prevalence of homosexuality is not due to societal moral decay or anything equally ridiculous. If I remember correctly, the percentage of gays in any society remains roughly constant at any point of time, in any society. Therefore this new prevalence of homosexuality is simply because more people are feeling comfortable about being themselves, rather than putting on a charade of heterosexuality. [QUOTE]That has proven itself very difficult, since statistics regarding same-sex couples and children are very lacking in their evaluations, and are usually full of holes that immediately invalidate any claims. Though I can come to an independent conclusion from the matter through various links. I will do that now: [url]http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/benefits/index.html[/url] Marriage is universally healthy and beneficial in the contexts that it currently exists in. However, we have a few problems with the effects of same-sex marriage, listed here: [url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp[/url] and here: [url]http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/SSdivorcerisk.pdf[/url] Such as the higher divorce rates and an increasing number of out-of-wedlock births. Those are not advantageous, and it is generally accepted that this is a negative outcome. Example here: [url]http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/tst051304a.cfm[/url] Personally, I think the most comprehensive article that I had found on the issue was the following: [url]http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf[/url] This, if you are to read any of the articles in their entirety, is the most interesting read here.[/QUOTE] These links, while interesting, left me with a few questions. First, what does gay marriage have to do with heterosexual marriage, and how would the implementation of the former impact the latter? Second, how is the rate of [i]births[/i] at all related to [i]gay[/i] marriage? It seems counterintuitive. Third, how is a high rate of divorce amongst gay marriages a reason to disallow it? [QUOTE]The state of sex in society as a whole is heading towards a deplorable state.[/QUOTE] Uh, sure. I personally think the advent of contraception, abortion, and more a socially liberal populace are a great thing. [QUOTE]Business partners can be "emotionally involved" just as much as any other couple, not including the sex. But to include sex, that is what is important in the social contract of marriage. That is the key defining factor between marriage and any business proposition. The foundations for this sex, those are really where problems lie.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Gays, too, can (and do) have sex. [QUOTE]Back in my first post, when I reasoned about the nature of sexual attractions and perception, I came to a conclusion about this nature. This lead me to a conclusion about the nature of a particular example (homosexuality) in the very large list of sexual preferences and desires. [/QUOTE] Homosexuality and bizarre sexual fetishes are vastly different in that one is voluntary, the other is not. [QUOTE]Really, the issue of lust was the starting point for which I launched my argument.[/QUOTE] Funny you mention this -- [i]I'm a big fan of lust[/i]. I think it's great fun. It's only a problem when one acts on their lust in an illegal manner (rape). [QUOTE]Anyway, in regards to gay sex, it is the number one way of transferring aids, according to avert.org upwards of 65% of aids is transferred through Males having Sex with Males (or MSM). This is due to incredibly high amount of promiscuosity prior to the marriage movement. The tearing of mucosa and infection rates is also increased for MSM relationships.[/QUOTE] To be frank (and incredibly non-PC), with this information considered I'm surprised you don't support gay sex. My implications are terribly apparent. But further, I don't see how the transmittance of STDs constitutes an "unhealthy society." Or at least it's not sufficient to forbid gay marriage. If you're serious about maintaining a "healthy society," you should support a ban on gay sex. Then, and only then, would the problem of STDs be addressed... until then, you might actually be perpetuating the problem. Promiscuousness would be reinforced by the inability for a gay couple to marry up. [QUOTE]BTW, I always hate it when someone generalizes my position into one similar to discrimination against inter-racial marriages. There is a vast difference between inter-racial marriages, and same-sex marriages.[/QUOTE] Yes, but also understand it's the exact same logic that was employed to forbid interracial marriage. People fought long and hard against it, but eventually it happened (thanks to [i]progress[/i]ives). And society didn't fall apart. I have a sneaking suspicion gay marriage will enjoy a similar dynamic.[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Incorrect. Science must assume that it does not know.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Right, science does not know if there is a god -- there is no way to veritably test god's existence, especially since you have all sorts of people claiming they know what god's [i]real[/i] nature is. In the absence of proof, we must say god's is nonexistent until proven otherwise. If I say "there is a boogieman, seriously guys" the onus is on me to give you evidence. Otherwise, you will dismiss me as a raving lunatic, or perhaps just an irritating prankster. The argument over god's existence is the same. Where's your proof? How can we test your hypothesis? I'm waiting...[/font]

[quote name='Jeremiah']Intelligent design and the biblical creation story lean to the fact that life is interconnected, because it came from one source, God. I fail to see how this can be used to prove the evolution theory any more than it can be applied to the creation story. I like to see the two, science and faith, as compatible. Look at the DNA strand, which is unique to every individual. Either this is the product of time, chance and natural selection, or it is a defining characterisitic given to us by a God who declared us to be "fearfully and wonderfully made." The scientific discovery of the water cycle is not at odds with the Bible either. In Job 36:27-28 it details the nature of evaporation, condensation and rain as being the work of God, thousands of years before such a discovery was made. Sometimes, it's not a case of the Bible making unverifiable claims, it's the scientific method playing catch-up.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Observation of physical phenomena (in this instance, evolution) further substantiates theories based in the physical world. There is no way to provide evidence in support of "intelligent design" aside from revelation. One could arbitrarily say anything is due to "god's grace," but until god shows up, the burden of proof is on you. Until then, science must assume there is no actor outside our system of physical reality.[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']The biggest thing that should be done is a cultural shift, away from free-consequenceless sex, and towards one that reserves sex for marriage and orders it towards procreation. Though unlikely to occur, a cultural shift would bring with it the resolutions to many of the problems we face today. Will there always be stragglers, violations, and individuals who go against the norm? Of course there will. However, it will no longer be popular, encouraged, or an industry with more value than the sports industry.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I don't really understand why you care if sex is done with the intent of creating life. It seems like you're putting a biological function on a pedestal. Sex is like eating or defecating -- it happens in all (most?) species and it happens for a specific reason. I fail to see what's so admirable about it, to be frank haha. [QUOTE]And do you suppose that it is just happenstance that the proven best environment to raise children is a married different sex couple with well-defined roles?[/QUOTE] I think this is just flatly false. Show me "proof" that different sex couples provide an appreciably different environment for raising healthy children. [QUOTE]Is it happenstance that marriages, until recently, were done to carry on family lines with property and possessions?[/QUOTE] I do not think marriage was originally conceived to carry on property. I would argue that the institution we now have as "marriage" was originally just the pairing of people for survival and evolved to have this set of values and this fabricated ideology. [QUOTE]Just mere coincidence that marriages have been based around the biological function until it was romanticized?[/QUOTE] I'll give you this point -- it is undeniable that sex is central to marriage. However your desire to uphold an antiquated ideal seems strange. Sex, while important, is no longer inextricable to the institution of marriage. People have sex out of wedlock, and plenty of couples have sex without intention of procreation. It seems arbitrary to exclude gays simply because they cannot procreate. Reproduction has lost its importance in society -- in fact, we have too many people on the planet. [QUOTE]Marriage, like all relationships, is a social contract that is drafted between individuals. There are various social contracts that can be drafted, like respecting family lines or agreeing to be room mates. Establishing roles as leaders, and jobs in society. The key difference between any sort of business union and marriage is the reproductive aspect. Two companies can merge together much in the same manner that two people can live together. That doesn't mean that we should treat business partners as married couples. You must not forget the reason why it is done: The reproductive aspect, or the lust aspect.[/QUOTE] Perhaps you mean "emotional." I would say that most couples value the "emotional" component to their marriage more than the simple ability to procreate. That can be done within or without marriage. [QUOTE]Same-sex couples live in the same manner as the lust aspect, and this is not a trend to be encouraged, even in heterosexual couples. My discouragement of this aspect is preference-neutral. Same-sex couples, regardless of all of the romanticizing, isn't ordered toward procreation. It can't, because the aspect of procreation requires that the other member be of the opposite sex. Do not forget why it is other people are condoning this action, either.[/QUOTE] I don't get why this is such a central piece to your argument. [QUOTE]It is the nature of the union between different sexes pledging fidelity that creates this effect. An outside effect (usually unknown) limiting fertility doesn't change this effect. However, if it is given that someone does pursue after infertile members of the opposite sex in an attempt to avoid having children based upon sex, that is also to be looked down upon. When I hear that the amount of men in their early 20s getting vasectomies is increasing, I think it is an abomination.[/QUOTE] I guess this cements your commitment to procreation. Perhaps you could explain why you're so wedded to this relatively unimportant, unremarkable process? Sex and reproduction are so idolized that we fail to remember that [i]humans are simply glorified apes[/i]. We have bigger brains, and therefore ascribe more importance to our mundane actions. This is sort of the foundation for religion and "natural rights," both of which I'm not a fan of. [QUOTE]The particular reason why I have argued for retaining marriage in this thread is the following: The preservation of a healthy society. This is a context that the majority of people in westernized nations unanimously agree on. It is almost unanimously agreed upon that objectifying, vanity based sex is negatively affecting society as well, which is why my opponents either try to distance homosexuality from this and call it "love", or they try to say that it is a necessary evil for the "greater freedom".[/QUOTE] I don't understand why you get to call gay relations "objectifying" or "vanity based sex." It's a weak analysis of social movements, at best. If you can objectively show me that gay sex, and more particularly gay marriage have been detrimental to "the preservation of a healthy society" I'll take your points more seriously. Until then, I'll be forced to consider you a bigot -- no better than one who considers interracial marriage detrimental to "the preservation of a healthy society." Perhaps we could also get your definition of "healthy," and your explanation on why our society is healthy in the first place.[/font]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]You know what? You could completely ignore me on this, but what if that designer created Himself or just [I]was[/I]? Isn't that possible?[/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Isn't it possible that existence always [i]was[/i]? Why does the universe have to have a creator?[/font]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]I thought the saying "not to compel him to serve" meant not to make him serve. Since compel means to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly. He can leave whenever he want with what he earned. So with foreigners, it's wrong because you made them do it. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]No, this is a specific instance in which an impoverished Israelite would try to sell himself into slavery -- this is to be prohibited from happening. This is not supposed to be a way to acquire slaves, nor was this normal -- it would seem that slaves were normally foreigners (especially if you look at the preceding verses). The point is that the Bible has all sorts of ridiculous rules in it, so why do you choose specifically to obey the one that says "gays are an abomination"? [QUOTE=Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (KJV)][B]If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father[/B], or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. [B]And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die[/B]: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.[/QUOTE] Or how about... [quote name='Leviticus 20:9 NLT][B]All who curse their father or mother must be put to death.[/B'] They are guilty of a capital offense.[/quote] Sounds like a plan.[/font]

[quote name='Calypso'][COLOR="Sienna"]You see, they weren't forced to be slaves, they sold themselves. That's completely different. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]My interpretation was that if another Israelite ("brethren") wanted to sell himself into slavery, it was [i]not to be permitted[/i] ("not compel him to serve"). This does not prohibit the enslavement of foreigners, however.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph']I am even more disturbed by the rampant Jesus-ophobism, to be honest. I believe [I]your[/I] reaction, [COLOR="DarkRed"]Retribution[/COLOR], is mostly because you know I am a Christian already, and therefore assume I am deliberately painting a vulgar picture of Islam to promote my own religion. My goal is nothing of the sort; in fact, I rarely spread my faith around because I see no sense in running my mouth to people who don't want to hear my made-up stories.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]If you are calling me "Jesus-ophobic," I would object. I'm more taking issue with the broadly negative picture being painted of Islam here. I personally find these views to be intellectually dishonest. I assumed you were painting Islam as a violent religion (and generally speaking there's a lot of that language in your former posts, intended or not). So I wanted to knock that argument down by bringing up [i]your[/i] religion. You know, it's the argument of "pick the plank out of your own eye before taking the splinter out of your brother's." [QUOTE]My goal is solely to bring an understanding of Islam to the playing field, and remind people that [I]American diverse[/I] thinking will be ineffective in dealing with such a culturally [I]unified[/I] thinking as this. That unity is their strength, and a very admirable trait, which the Christian community has not been able to maintain since the Protestant separation.[/QUOTE] I'm not really sure what you mean in creating a unified/diverse dichotomy of thinking. I'm not even sure that it's valid to call Islam "culturally unified" insofar as there are different sects with wildly varying doctrines. These divisions are in large part responsible for the current civil unrest in Iraq. If anything, I'd call Christianity more unified. I don't see how unity of thought is positive, though. If anything, "American diversity" should be considered amazingly positive -- both in ends and ethos. In any event, I think we should also bring a distinction between the truth of the religion (i.e. the actual teachings and honest interpretations) and what the religion is purported to be by its mouthpieces. For instance, Christianity has been used to justify war by politicians, but an examination of Jesus' teachings would leave anyone understanding that he was a pacifist. Likewise, we should study Islam as it is, and not assume it is a violent religion because of its followers actions.[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']There is no double standard, because love =/= sex. Same-sex marriages exists only to condone the sexual aspect of a relationship, because as you have said yourself, the "love" aspect (in all of it's abstract in-definition) doesn't require marriage. [...] I am a little dissappointed in you, Timechaser. I expected someone who "lives in the age of reason" to not attach metaphysical, abstract, undefined, gushy-spiritual feelings towards the nature of reproductive acts.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]This is ridiculous, and I'll tell you why. Your definition of marriage is flawed. You assume marriage is an institution that aims primarily at procreation; this is fundamentally wrong. Marriage at its core and foundation is a survival mechanism for the two parties involved. It allows the pooling of resources, increases the purchasing power of the couple, and increases efficiency of almost all tasks related to survival (finding food, mutual protection, etc). The entity of "marriage" in this day and age is still fundamentally the same. While we fetishize it and project notions of "happiness" and "finding the love of your life," marriage is still for the mutual benefit of both parties involved for survival purposes. Governmental policy is heavily indicative of this -- married couples have MANY more benefits than an unmarried couple. It's simply beneficial to marry up, from a fiscal perspective. Gays can and do live together if they are a couple. They live their lives as a married couple would. The only thing that is different is their lack of access to these benefits that heterosexuals are afforded. The ability to procreate is a moot point -- what of infertile couples? Should they be denied the ability to marry, simply based on this [arbitrary/irrational] criterion?[/font]

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]Just to jump in a little here, but perhaps you should re-read Allamorph's posts. There has been no claims to Christianity being 'passive'. In fact he hasn't said anything about his faith at all. So where is this hypocrisy you speak of?[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]There have been no [i]explicit[/i] claims to Christianity being nonviolent, but there is certainly the insinuation. Why would he bring up the "tendency" of Islam to be "violent," unless it was a tacit value judgment? He must assume that Christianity is more peaceful if his assertion of Islam's violence can hold any water -- for if he believed Christianity to be just as violent, why would he bring up the point? That'd be even more ridiculous. To be frank, I'm disturbed by the Islamophobia and sweeping generalizations going on in this thread. You've been fed political scaremongering, and in some cases, outright lies. The fact that you read Coulter's book, Esther, is troubling insofar as you would take her seriously.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]The only reason I make this stance is because I can say with full confidence that there is no such thing as "extreme" Islam. "Extreme" is a word tossed on by the media to make headlines draw people to read; it does not in actuality exist, just as "pacifist" Islam does not exist. Granted, not everyone who is Muslim is a terrorist. But that does not mean that those who are not would not kill if given the chance. (Incidentally, the aforementioned student who stabbed the table also stated that he would have executed the convert himself if he were able. And this group of students was in northern Turkey, if I recall my friend's words correctly.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]This is ridiculous -- to say there is no "extreme" or "moderate" schools of thought within Islam is to dismiss the majority of the American Muslim population. There are Muslims living in America who do not support/endorse the actions of terrorists or religious fundamentalists in the Middle East. There are Muslims living in the Middle East who hold more radical views. Be certain; there is absolutely a spectrum of thought within the faith. Additionally, Islam is just as "inherently violent" as Christianity or Judaism. Read Leviticus, look at Christian justification for conquest and destruction, and you'll see that perhaps your critique of the violence of Islam is a bit hypocritical. Sorry if I didn't do your points full justice, I have to run.[/font]