Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I will offer one small bone to jerrek as my final post to this thread.

Extreme right and left wing ideologies nearly always end up being almost identical when put into practice hence his description of Nazi ideology being socialist has some mileage. In essence the two extremes of right and left actually complete a circle, as for the ordinary man under either regime the result is always the same.

The down side of this concession is it matters little whether jerrek sees himself to the be to the right or left, as the key bit is, being so extreme in his views, gives the impression he would be equally at home being communist fascist or any other ist.

The truth is jerrek you have your own ideology and that could best be described as "Selfist".

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I merely advanced that definition as a possible explanation of Justanothernoob's comments. I also pointed out that you appear to fit parts of definition two in my quote.

And for me to explain to you how fascism is right-wing would be way beyond the scope of this thread (or even the forum).

Actually, I haven't specified (in this thread) whether I believe in the Bible or Evolution. I never said I had proof. I was making the point that you appear willing to accept written text as proof (ie The Bible), but demand something more concrete when Science puts forward a theory.

Did you actually read my post, or just assume I was being anti-Jerrek?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I think it was a knee-Jerrek reaction...

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

The point is her scale doesn't work if racism and socialism are both on the left what exact IS right?

He persecuted the Jews - how can this be described 'liberal'. He persecuted communists - why would he if they were the same side?

Evolution is about the development of LIFE not the universe if you were to research it you would see it is very similar to your let the unemployed rot idealism
Do you deny that children look like their parents now?
Jesus met with criminals, outcasts, infidels and was never disrespectful to them, he was usually charitable. This does seems to contradict your opinions.
He said "adam and steve" as your argument - this is a religious reference.

I'm afraid I can't explain why blue means blue - it's just a word assigned to it. How you ever wondered why ayn Rand's theory isn't generally excepted?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

They are NOT "now known not to have co-existed with humans." Where did you get that from?

No.

Does the local paper give comfort to people? Is it inspired by God?

Actually no. Of course there's translational issues but the way the Scrolls were translated in to English showed that the way the OT was translated was very accurate.

I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone else - I don't need to.

Well of course their opinions are a true representation of all Christians, aren't they.... :rolleyes:

I've never said that, neither would I use that phrase. Actually no-one at my church would say that either.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I note that you say 'some', but am deeply concerned at how you quantify this. A tiny minority? A somewhat larger one? A narrow majority, perhaps? Through Christian Union at university I met Christians from a very broad range of backgrounds and traditions, and I can assure you that I never once met anyone who would put their name to the assertions made by that website.

It's just ... wrong. I can't begin to explain in how many ways it's wrong. Their Bible quoting is deeply selective and further flawed by the fact that they quote the King James Bible while being obviously ignorant of the meaning of English words as used by those who produced it ... I could go on, but I hope you get the idea.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

That is because you assume things, and would like to fit me into your little box of how I should be. In most cases, you're just wrong.

I have not actually seen that. Where did you see that?

That is also not true. A large portion of the right, including me, are very unhappy about Bush's spending spree.

However, if you are burning U.S. flags in the street, protesting the war by saying Saddam and the ****'te government should win, and supporting other nations over your own, then you are unpatriotic by definition.

Fascinating. Please explain.

That is not what I said, and you know it. Go back and read through what I wrote a few more times.

The purpose of federal income tax was to pay for the war and to pay off the national debt. Taxes are meant to support the government, not the people. That is what charities are for.

I have. Note my posts directed to JustAnotherNoob. Go back up, and read through them again. You're clearly not reading what I'm writing. The arguments I'm bringing is the same as what she is saying. If you want, quote your favorite author in short, powerful arguments.

I do apologize for my English skills. It isn't as great as yours, afterall, it is my third language and when I wrote that part I wrongly translated it. Yes, I made a mistake, and I am recognizing and admitting it.




So you're saying the man that invented and implemented Nazism isn't credible? Oh please. His party was called the NAZI party, and if you look at the goals of the Nazi party, you will see what Nazism is. Unless the Nazis didn't follow a nazi philosophy? /confused

What are you saying?

German Worker's Party. Yes, sounds like a conservative party to me. Regardless, it was not a conservative party, because it was the Nazi party under a different name. They merely changed the name later to National Socialist Party. The philosophies remained the same under both these parties.

Nice fallacy, one that Ayn Rand clearly outlines in the arguments I've posted earlier on.

Thats real fascinating. You know my beliefs pretty well. I've asked a hundred times, and I'm asking again. How do my beliefs relate to being a fascist?

I've shown you from Hitler's own mouth what he considered to be Nazism (brother of fascism). I've also stated my beliefs regarding lots of social and economic issues numerous times, and I've even shown you how it totally contradicts what fascism and nazism is. Just yelling fascist or nazi isn't an argument. You need to show me how you think and how you came to your conclusion.

Now you've labelled me a communist too. Excellent. This is even more fun. I can quote Marx here, but I want to hear it from you. How am I a communist? Me that is a total capitalist. Please. I'm all for little government, no welfare, and hard work. I want you to show me how you think and how you came to your conclusion.

Perhaps. I'm definitely one of those that firmly believe in the good of the individual over the good of the community. Both fascism and communism believe in opposite philosophies, good of the community over the good of the individual.

That is a real cute way of getting out of an argument you lost.

Racism is an attribute and a state of mind of an individual. It has nothing to do with political beliefs. One can be a communist and racist, just like one can be a fascist and not racist. The right places a focus on individual freedoms.

If you look back, I clearly stated that the Communists voted for him because their philosophies are virtually the same. Hitler didn't like communists because they did not support private property rights. I also never described him as liberal. He was a Nazi, and Stalin was a communist. Just like the Nazi party killed Jews, the Communist Party of Russia exterminated minorities. Both ends up with a dictatorship, whereas on the right we look to minimize government.

Yes, you're right, it is about life for most part, but you have ignored my questions. Nice way to dodge them.

No, but that is because they share the same genes. Mutations are deformities and do not get passed along. For example, if you take the five-legged cow and mate him, you're not going to get five-legged offspring. My question was for you to provide me with proof that mutations pass along to children.

And likewise I do not mind talking to criminals, "infidels," and so on. It is true he was never disrespectful to them, and I know I'm not perfect and sometimes I get frustrated with people twisting my words and ignoring other parts. I do apologize if I've been disrespectful though. And yeah, he is charitable, and so am I. I certainly don't mind helping people. I give to charities. I donate blood. What I object is that the government takes it and redistributes it as how it sees fit. I want to do it on my own accord.

It was more of a joke really. But I stand with my original point, "I do believe I've said I should be allowed to have religion form my opinion. I never said the government and church should marry."

That is also a cute way of getting out of it. "It is like that because it is like that!" Sorry, but no cigar. Ayn Rand's theories is accepted, by the way. I was taught that in high school, and in university. And she isn't the only one. There are thousands others. It makes sense.

On the other hand, your "it is like that because it is like that" doesn't make sense. I want you to provide an explanation of why you do not agree with Ayn Rand and bring arguments to the table.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I found this link, written from someone coming at the issue from the religious perspective, who highlights the fact that the *only* evidence for the co-existence of dinosaurs and humans comes from scripture, and none of the scientific evidence provides support. Of course, there are plenty of other sources that argue from a purely scientific viewpoint, but I thought this one was interesting as it encompasses both science and religion.

http://www3.sympatico.ca/gord.rayner...cles/Dinos.htm

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Take your head out of the sand and take a look around you. "Land of the free", more like "land of limited freedom as long as you agree with the government". Did you fail to notice the backlash against the celebrities who spoke out against the war in Iraq? It was veering dangerously close the blacklisting of the McCarthy era.

It's a bit of cloth, get over it. Besides, you are arguing that someone is being unpatriotic by exercising their right to protest. I think you've just supported me on the previous point.

Frankly, if you are so blinkered that you need it explained to you how big business pulls the strings of government the I don`t have any confidence that you could understand the explanation. Just as long as you've got your low-grade coffee and burgers what's the problem?

http://www.hmc.psu.edu/childrens/healthinfo/pq/poly.htm

For a person who wanted to get into MIT you do have a shockingly poor knowledge of general science.

Translated - I only support individuals that meet my criteria of "worthiness".

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I didn't lose it, as I didn't enter any argument. I merely provided one possible answer to your question.

You appear to think I posted against you. I didn't. If Justanothernoob had used those arguments against anybody, I would have reached the same conclusion.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

I have it on very good authority :

http://www.newscientist.com/hottopic.../dinomyths.jsp

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

At the risk of causing further arguments, I'd just like to point out that if the mutations were present at the genetic level of the pre-foetal sex cells (spermatazoa or ova) that went into forming the 5-legged cow then there is every chance that that 5-legged cow will father/mother five-legged children. It very much depends at what point the mutations occured, but yes mutations can be passed onto children. You can demostrate this in a matter of hours using bacterial cells.

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

As Dr Wadd said, you obviously don't even have a basic understanding of genetics.
Never heard of sicle cell anemia?
Why do you think mice with their fantastic reproductive rate are used in genetic research?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Free market capitalism
Companies compete for money and growth oppertunities - they are left to survive and fail based on their own attributes - attributes that can change.

Theory of Natural Selection
Animals compete for food and sexual partners - they are left to live or die based on their own attributes - attributes that can change,
I meant to say facism.

Shall we look at your scale of things:

Left: Controlling power/government
Hitler
Stalin
Marx
Charles Kennedy (liberal democrat wanting large public sector)
The Queen (monarch - power over private property)
Tony Blair (supposed socialist)
American Public (wanting stricter controls on public nudity and criminals)

Right Lack of controlling power/government
George Bush (I assume Jerrek thinks he is on the right)
Johny Rotten (supposed anarchist)
Homosexuals (wanting freedom to marry)
Charles Kennedy (wanting lean sentances on criminals)


Does anyone else see a problem here?

Re: In Defense of the Marriage
 

Hi......

Here goes my attempt to get back on topic :)

I think that Marriage is a very important institution.. I got married becouse I love my wife very much and wanted to show some dedication and comitment to her...

My wedding day was the best day of my life !!!

These days if you live with someone for more than 6 months you have legal rights like a Marriage does...............

I truely believe that a Marriage should be between a male and a female that love each other dearly. I dont think it has anything to do with politics at all !!!