Retribution

[quote name='Anime_girl5']6) it feels like I'm getting a bad rep. and dont get christians wrong. right now I'm ticked and tired, but I never give up. Christians try to serve God, and do his will. W[B]e spen hours knocking on peoples doors, witnessing.[/B] And go to church many times.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]So... much... wasted... time...[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Sucks to hear that Esther. I was hoping to watch this debate (I'll have to see a repeat due to time differences), so I'm not sure if I'll watch it now. Hm...[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I would recommend at least watching half of it. While they do deliver their normal talking points ad nauseam, there are definitely great moments of verbal dueling. A much more somber and sharp debate than the last.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]I'm waiting for the one night I'll be overloaded with work and I'll drink my first cup of black coffee and experience the wonders of caffeine. But I would never drink it for fun.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]My mother once left me alone with my grandmother for an afternoon when I was maybe 2. When she came back, I was sipping away at totally black coffee. [i]Enjoying[/i] it. (That story had no point)[/font]

[font=Arial]I've never been a big coffee guy. When I must consume it, I prefer it with french vanilla cream and a small bit of sugar. Generally speaking, though, I go for tea. Right now I have Earl Grey, but I did have some Chai a while back.[/font]

[quote name='Esther']That's a very large conclusion to come to. I don't take the choosing of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee offending at all. I actually applaud the McCain campaign for attempting to make a clever political move.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]So you applaud him to pick a "token" candidate, not to actually advance women's rights, but as a puppet candidate? Clinton was well informed on issues, did extremely well in debates, and was definitely a champion of women's rights. I'm not sure I can say the same for Palin. [QUOTE]What I do find offensive though is your statement that "informed, liberal" women would never vote for the McCain-Palin ticket; what about informed, conservative women?[/QUOTE] What about them? Informed, [i]liberal[/i] women should not and probably will not vote for Palin simply because her views run counter to [i]liberal[/i] ideology. Conservatives might find her views more uh... satisfying. [QUOTE]It seemed to me that you were characterizing women such as myself as so stubborn and ignorant in terms of our political beliefs that we wouldn't so dare as to vote for someone who doesn't represent our political stances to the tee -- which is obviously an impossible feat.[/QUOTE] Let me set the record straight and make my view abundantly clear. If you are a liberal woman, it would be absolutely ridiculous to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket. It'd be an absolute joke. Don't vote against Obama simply because he beat Clinton. Don't vote for Palin simply because she's a woman. Vote based on which candidate closest resembles your views on all the issues. If you are liberal, that candidate would be Obama. So to vote in spite of all your personal views, based simply on gender, is [i]sexist[/i]. It's the exact same as people voting for a candidate simply based on skin color. That's [i]racist[/i]. So yes, if you are a liberal (and presumably informed) woman, you are a fool to vote for Palin. If you are a conservative (and presumably informed) woman, you would do well to vote for Palin.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]I'm just very tired of the same one-sided debates. I may not agree with Palin, but outright dismissing her is a mistake. I really value balance in politics and it's something we don't often see.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I'm glad you want to be balanced and fair, and it is certainly good to at least [i]look[/i] at all candidates objectively before choosing who to support. However that's as far as the balance should go. That is to say that when the candidates are not balanced, there's no reason to artificially insert balance. As for my comment on "informed women," I did mean to say something approximating "liberal, informed women" so you're right on that count. Hopefully the comment sounds less ridiculous now. As for the rest, I do truly believe a McCain-Palin administration would be "incompetent" insofar as they would fail in reaching actual bipartisan solutions with the Congress. Professionally, McCain-Palin would be able to hold the country together. I doubt they'd do considerably worse than Bush. However a lack of failure is not what I want from my presidential administration -- and I'm almost certain their performance would be lackluster. Sorry if that offends you or anyone else, but I'm willing to dismiss the pick of Palin as an insult to American intelligence.[/font]

[font=Arial]IF THE GLOVE DOESN'T FIT, YOU MUST ACQUIT.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]First, I understand the polarization going on here. It's evidenced throughout this thread and across the Internet. Those who are pro-Obama are visciously anti-McCain/Palin and those who are pro-McCain are visciously anti-Obama/Biden. [...] Yet you clearly haven't pointed out the instances where Palin has very obviously gone against her party in the interests of fighting said corruption. Anyone can point to negatives with each candidate, or choices they disagree with. But that is hardly the point here. The point I was making earlier still stands - especially as far as expressing [i]why[/i] Palin may be valuable to Republicans. A lot of it is about perception; it's worth remembering that.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Palin is valuable to Republicans, and you're right, much of that is due to perception. Indeed, there is little [i]actual[/i] value to be found in Palin aside from her being a woman, and her being a political newcomer in this election cycle. Of course there's polarization, but most of it is due to diametric opposition to Republican initiatives/philosophy. But at the same time I think you should reconsider your belief that Palin is some political "maverick" willing to fundamentally shake up the Washington scene. I doubt she would have the competence to navigate the ins-and-outs of Washington, let alone alter the partisan bedrock that is there. She's a talking point machine, a puppet engineered for the sole purpose of image. She adds no appreciable [i]content[/i] to the national dialogue of this election. [QUOTE][font=franklin gothic medium]That doesn't even make sense. And it insults women. People who assume that disgruntled Hillary voters will automatically turn to Palin just because she's a woman are suggesting that female voters don't have any intelligence or strongly held views on issues. Palin and Hillary are ideologically opposed in most areas. I doubt any informed woman would vote for Palin just because of her gender.[/font][/QUOTE] Actually this point was perhaps one of the most valid all thread. The very decision to pick Palin after a couple phone calls and no substantial research shows how ridiculous their internal processes were. McCain wanted to pick a woman with [i]even less experience than Obama[/i] to mop up the female vote in the wake of Democratic division. He was banking on the hope that women would not think rationally on election day and vote for another woman. As I said before, she added nothing appreciable to the ticket aside from her gender. So you're right: woman [i]should[/i] be offended with the McCain campaign -- because they did assume women would be irrational and foolish. I also doubt any informed woman would vote for McCain-Palin, but the GOP thought otherwise. Edit: I did not call Palin "corrupt," nor did I insinuate that she was. Rather, I doubt her ability to fight corruption. I thought this was more or less explicit in my previous post, but perhaps not.[/font]

[quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Politically speaking, one thing that Palin does have in her favour (especially as part of the McCain ticket) is her ability to be utterly impartial with members of her own party. There are several examples of her working in an anti-corruption role within the Republican party - and she seems to have no hesitation to upset party members in doing this.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Perhaps, but her [arbitrary?] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal][b]dismissal of the Public Safety Commissioner[/b][/url] is disturbing and questionable. To be frank, I would not trust the woman to fight corruption or stand up to detrimental special interests -- this is the same woman who championed the "Bridge to Nowhere" and later tried to play down her involvement. Let's not make her out to be a bastion of integrity and prudent judgment.[/font]

[quote name='Nathan'][FONT="Arial"]The problem with allowing them to just go bankrupt is at this point, the problem is big enough that the fall out will affect thousands of Americans both money and job wise who had nothing to do with it. I strongly dislike bail outs in any form, however I think it has become a necessary evil at this point.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I'm inclined to agree. The problem with "letting the giants fail" is that they have a network of assets so vast that if they were to fail, it would destroy vast swaths of the financial picture as we know it. Catastrophic failures would definitely impact average citizens. Conversely, we have to be extremely careful about appropriating 700 [i]billion[/i] for a bailout. Bush is demanding Congress pass this quickly and with little examination, but that's the exact same thinking that compelled most members to vote to invade Iraq. Little examination of the evidence, and a disturbing lack of understanding of a long-term plan.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms]Only because of your Ivy League ~connections~.[/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Duly fitting for someone of your [i]pedigree[/i].[/font]

[quote name='Crimson Spider']Just, don't sell your soul to go overboard with the cash.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Ridiculous. So long as I'm not contemplating suicide by Friday, I'll take a bad job for good pay.[/font]

[font=Arial]When will you all understand? The almighty dollar rules your life. Surrender to it, worship it. Take a high paying job, even if you absolutely despise the work. After your long day at the office, drive home miserable and ragged in your Benz to your estate in Westchester. As you walk into your house, remember how much you regret marrying a dumb trophy wife. Then remember you can't divorce, as she'd take 50% of your assets, and how much it would tear apart your children. Eat your dinner (cooked with premium ingredients!), entertain your family with fake smiles and thin laughter. Maybe you get tired of them and take off to your country club, where you talk with other men who too hate their lives. Once you get home, you try to scrub your soul's emptiness away in your marble bathroom. Slide regretfully into bed, and realize you have no interest in your trophy wife and roll over in self-loathing. Wake up the next day at 5am, throw on your Givenchy suit, and stagger off to work. Your mortgage, country club membership, car note, and tuition (for your children) won't pay themselves, will they? At least you'll look hella good in your misery, hm?[/font]

[font=Arial]Assuming the child can be born physically healthy, I don't really see a problem with it. The scientific implications are profound, but socially I don't consider this a big deal (at least personally).[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial](And I agree with [COLOR=DarkRed]A_M[/COLOR]; bringing up Africa is essentially a cop-out. Why is it no one ever brings up the problems in Azerbaijan? Why is Africa so damned important? :p I call foul on the grounds of attempting to pull heartstrings with the intent to distract from the argument.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]No, it's really not. It's the single most salient example of this debate being played out IRL. If you can't handle the failures of abstinence-only education when observing the situation there, that's your problem. When debating, one is called to bring examples/evidence in support of one's point... that's my Exhibit A. [QUOTE][font=Arial]Looking at your last paragraph: do you honestly believe that the intent of Christianity is to prevent suffering? Good grief, man, I thought you understood things. Christianity preaches surcease [I]from[/I] suffering, not prevention of it. We believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin. To give people the means to avoid consequences of what we believe is a sin is not pragmatic, but enabling. We would then be encouraging them to engage in an activity that we believe is not right. Translated: "You're doing the wrong thing, and there will be problems because of it; but it's dangerous to go alone?take this!" That is preaching one direction, and turning around and assisting the exact opposite.[/font][/QUOTE] The intent of Christianity is to love your neighbor, to help them in any way possible, and yes, to lend a hand in alleviating the suffering of your fellow man. That's why Christian missions go places and give medical aid, that's why Christians open up soup kitchens and homeless shelters. This debate is similar to giving free, clean needles to people, no questions asked at medical clinics. While that's (much more) controversial, the idea is that if people are going to do harmful activity X, we should at least attempt to make it safer. [QUOTE][font=Arial]On that we agree. And so you argue that the Church should still encroach upon the State's territory?[/font][/QUOTE] The State doesn't have exclusive domain over this issue. [QUOTE][font=Arial]So once again: [list][*]Abstinence is the most practical solution from an objective standpoint. [*]Abstinence also happens to be a moral stance by the Church. [*]Claiming that a group of people should encourage an activity they frown upon is rather silly.[/list][/font][/QUOTE] You see, the Church is selecting which of its moral stances it wants to uphold when preaching abstinence-only in regions affected by HIV/AIDS. The Church also has another moral stance, which is to attempt to help others in need in the most effective way. What essentially must be done is a reevaluation of which moral stances are above others. Is the principle of abstinence more important than stopping astronomical infection rates? Christians are called to do both, but which is closest to what Jesus himself would do? [QUOTE][font=Arial]How is economic security any business of the Vatican? Church and State, anyone? If you don't want us in your affairs, don't tell us we should be in your affairs.[/font][/QUOTE] Economic security is not the primary aim in distributing contraception to (let's say) African nations, but it is a very big consequence. I just want you to understand the gravity of the situation, what is at stake, and how drastically lives could be improved through the distribution of condoms. I thought that would be worth more to Christians than the principle of upholding some law. I'm surprised that you don't see how pharisaical the entire dispute is.[/font]

[center][font=Arial][i]EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW[/i][/font][/center]

[quote name='Aaryanna_Mom']Africa seems to be the catch phrase of why any and all religion should toss out their core beliefs systems when it comes to sex education. I've heard that argument so many times. Plus at the same time, you're veering off on a tangent here instead of sticking to the topic. Which is sex education for teens and pre-teens. People who by law are considered unable to give consent to having sex in the first place.[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Sure, it's tangential, but that doesn't diminish my points truth. So if you have an actual rebuttal, I'd love to hear it. I brought up this issue because I feel it's based on the same ideology that is pro abstinence-only education. The Catholic belief is that life begins at conception, that sex is a holy union of essences, and contraceptives diminish the inherent beauty and worth of the act. They believe that sex should be had with the potential to beget life, and to use contraceptives is an abuse of this act. This is why they don't believe in teaching kids the benefits/risks of condoms. This is why they don't distribute condoms in regions plagued by HIV/AIDS. You can say it's a non-sequitur but it's a very-much related issue. To me, Christianity is tossing out its core belief system by refusing to help people the most effective way possible. It's a pharisaical sort of argument that abides strictly to dogma without taking into account what the intent of those laws are. The core of Christianity is more or less "love your neighbor as you love yourself," "help others in need," etc. It seems hollow and worthless when the Church says "We refuse to hand out condoms to prevent the spread of disease because [i]we're against using condoms[/i]" when in reality, [i]lives would be saved[/i]. I'm not sure about your interpretation of the texts, but I think Jesus would rather save lives and families than have people die over a dogmatic dispute. I don't expect condoms to be the only method of saving lives, but I would expect aid groups to use all tools available to them in order to better the lives of others. Not using condoms based on principle alone is both disgusting and hilarious. Cheers.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=arial]I'd say that would be the [I]ideal[/I] goal, but you and I both know that it's not at all practical when it comes to minors who have already spent a great deal of time developing their own values based on their environments, [I]and[/I] who typically scorn any involvement from the State. The [I]reasonable[/I] goal, then, would be to inform and encourage.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Funny you say that, when abstinence-only education isn't practical anyway. Pragmatism dictates the discussion of safe sex in addition to abstinence. Abstinence-only education isn't reasonable. It's a childishly defiant way of looking at the world -- "Just don't have sex! You shouldn't have sex, so I won't tell you ways to make it safer." The reality is that [i]a fair percentage of teens are going to have sex[/i], and with that considered, it is realistic to at least teach them how to protect themselves from pregnancy, disease, etc. [QUOTE][FONT=Arial]Are you as amused as I am that the State seems to be taking a "religious value" stance? Whatever happened to the separation of the two?[/FONT][/QUOTE] Well, I don't necessarily condemn the use of religion in guiding policy decisions. After all, many people derive their systems of morality from these institutions, so it's only logical that they would legislate in a manner that falls within the preordained pattern of thought. Then again, I also believe people should make their own personal philosophies, independent of a prescribed establishment (i.e. the Church). [QUOTE][FONT=Arial]Actually, I really don't care whether the State teaches this at all. It's nice that they seem to be taking the interest, but until we become a completely socialist state, the burden for such education will rest solely on the child's community, and [I]heavily[/I] on the child's parents. That's the only way in which such education will be at all effective?and again, we both know that even this effort doesn't yield 100% "success".[/FONT][/QUOTE] I have mixed feelings about that I guess. On one hand, parents should be responsible for their children and teach their kids about sex. On the other hand, these children are citizens and thus the government is tasked with their safety and well-being. So high HIV/AIDS infection rates are certainly within the realm of concern for them, and education on these topics isn't outrageous. [QUOTE][FONT=Arial]Kidding, of course. But seriously, why the massive focus on why the established (Christian, anyone? Pattern, much?) religions aren't stepping outside of their own doctrines and aren't catering to the secular sector? Wouldn't it seem more logical for them to actually stand by their beliefs and offer the aid that lay within? And from what you've said, that's what they appear to be doing. Hunh. It seems kind of foolish, then, to expect the Christian community to set aside their beliefs in deference to someone else's. I thought the whole concept of Relativism was to not let anyone force their beliefs on another. Why harass the Christians, then? Let them (let us, rather) preach abstinence, and find a secular group to preach contraceptives and birth control.[/FONT][/QUOTE] The reason I pick on the (specifically) Catholic/Evangelical refusal to distribute contraception or talk of the benefits of contraception is because it runs counter to Christian values. Rather than protest out of principle while hundreds of thousands of people become infected everyday, distribute condoms in Africa. Not only does it help preserve family structures, it allows countries to get back on their feet, it reduces human suffering, and it is certainly a component to economic strength. You can say "Christians should stick to their guns!" but that's fundamentally flawed. It fails to take into account the magnitude of human suffering that could be reduced had the Church taken the [i]spirit[/i] of the Bible, rather than the shallowly-interpreted written text. Essentially, their refusal to distribute condoms is contradictory and hypocritical. But hey, if you're cool with that, awsm.[/FONT]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]First, according you your perception (and mine as well), abstinence-only sex-ed is designed to [I]inform[/I] and [I]encourage[/I], [U]not[/U] to radically alter views of people who have already spent fifteen-odd years becoming acclimated to their current system. More specifically, the basic purpose would seem to be the enabling of teens to make a more informed decision about engaging in sex, and encouraging them to choose to wait until marriage. (Descry me now about the marriage institution at your leisure; I am stating observational data, not preaching.)[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]I would say the goal of abstinence-only education is to have the students abide by abstinence, turn away from physical relations (at least until marriage). This can either be religiously motivated or secular, but you'll generally find the proponents of abstinence-only sex ed are religious. To these people, the idea is that sex is an act reserved for marriage, that ones body is a temple and virginity is a plus, etc. I don't really feel like digging up the links, but kids who had abstinence-only education had unprotected sex more often the first time. Not just that, but I would posit that abstinence-only education fails to acknowledge the hormonal element in teenagers. It's a teaching system based in religious conservative ideals from another era. It ignores pragmatism. You wouldn't tell someone to never drive, due to the risks involved. You'd tell them to buckle up, haha. (And yes, I know the analogy is not perfect :p) I also think the Catholic Church's refusal to distribute condoms in regions plagued by HIV/AIDS is even more foolish. Instead, they advocate "natural family planning" and abstinence rather than approach the situation realistically, geared for success.[/font]

[quote name='Lunox'][font=trebuchet ms] My closet is really diverse, I pretty much buy things I find aesthetically pleasing, whether or not they're trendy or not. Generally I'm partial to preppy clothes, like polos and rugby stripes and argyle etc., so I love stores like J. Crew, but I also like digging through stores like Urban Outfitters (even though their clothes are ridiculously overpriced and not even of great quality) and American Apparel. Basically I like anything I find good-looking, but there are some types of clothes I stay away from: 'bohemian' style (i.e. not a fan of the clear nerd glasses, or the "I just rolled out of bed" look that actually cost $200), Juicy (I HATE this brand), glam, punk/emo. [/font][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Will you marry me? I generally wear prep gear... Ralph Lauren and J. Crew are my wardrobe staples. Fitted shirts with little to no graphic design on them, nice collared shirts, etc are my faves. For pants, I generally stick to dark denim, straight or slim cut. Usually accompanied by loafers ("driving shoes"), but I rock Converse from time to time. I love winter, because it gives me an excuse to break out the cardigan and peacoat. Summer is generally a drag because I'm not a big fan of shorts, so I suffer haha. I spend a decent amount on clothes, mostly because I'm a narcissist. A decent day of shopping will set me back maybe $200. I judge people on the way they look, and I'm sure others do the same to me, so I prefer to get my **** together in the mornings.[/font]

[quote name='Allamorph'][FONT=Arial]Judging from your motives, I'm truly surprised [COLOR=DarkRed]Retribution[/COLOR] didn't make an appearance. He loves conflict.[/FONT][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Hahaha! I would say I derive pleasure from rhetorical flourish, not just conflict. :p [quote name='The13thMan'][FONT="Trebuchet MS"]He might be a bit too smart for this conversation in this setting. Though, if he does ever read this, i'd love to get a good debate on this subject or any other on a different forum. [/FONT][/QUOTE] I'm starting to love my newfound online personality.[/font]

[quote name='Raiha'][COLOR="DarkOrchid"][FONT="Times New Roman"]Brief lesson: "Bro" denotes a kind of white male in southern California usually, who wears socks with slip on sandals, plaid shorts that don't match his designer shirt, and is usually as dumb as a rock.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Yeah... where I'm from, bros are also beer pong enthusiasts, as well as douchebags. I say "dope" in the place of "cool," which throws alot of people off, since it's a more NY thing. I also use "y'all" from time to time, which is strange considering I was raised in DC. For the record: pizza > pie soda > pop sprinkles > jimmies (those are condoms) sub/hero > hoagie tea is hot (and unsweetened) unless otherwise specified [quote name='James'][font=franklin gothic medium]Australian slang is weird. And a lot of it is totally crude. Yet somehow, at the right moments, it can really fit the bill.[/font][/QUOTE] Yeah, Aussie slang can be very non-PC. Ex: Bush hankie? Srsly guyz...[/font]

[quote name='vegeta rocker']And her female partner is going to breastfeed the [B][I][U]bay[/U][/I][/B].[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Wow, that's gotta be tough. Just imagine, an [i]entire body of water[/i] depending on one person. But more seriously, how is a woman who is not naturally lactating going to breastfeed a baby?[/font]

[quote name='Darren']Have fun. :animesmil[/QUOTE] [font=Arial]Considering the context, I lol'd.[/font]

[font=Arial]It is my understanding that while Korea and Japan have superior math/science scores in comparison to that of US children, their schools fail to adequately teach things like exposition, critical analysis, and argument in writing. You can always force more rote memorization and number-crunching onto a kid's plate without regard for the [i]person[/i], but I believe that tasks requiring more creativity are more contingent upon the person's internal condition. Generally I see this debate as a manifestation of an East/West cultural dichotomy, with the West focusing on the individual, and the East focusing on the group. Also, I'm not sure if math/science scores are an accurate way to measure the worth of self-esteem in classrooms. I'd say the number of bullies, fights, and amount of class camaraderie (however you'd quantify that) would be a more adequate way of measuring the worth of self-esteem.[/font]