In Defense of the Marriage

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

You're raping the definition of fascist again. Should we look it up in a dictionary? Please clarify how I'm fascist.

From the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary
fascism
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government
2. extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice

Now, you yourself have admitted to being right wing (although not extreme), and sometimes come across as being intolerant. Maybe thats what Justanothernoob meant

If flexible means accepting evolution (which hasn't been proven)

I find it interesting that people (not aimed at you in particular Jerrek) are willing to accept the Bible as proof (and let's face it, the bible could be fictional), but dismiss Evolution as unproven.

[Nor]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Prove it.

Like many, you call for absolute proof of evolution, but are happy to believe as Gospel words in a book written 2000 years ago with tales of magic and gods. Its faith I guess that makes the difference.

I have more faith in science myself.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by scastle

Now, you yourself have admitted to being right wing (although not extreme), and sometimes come across as being intolerant. Maybe thats what Justanothernoob meant

Jerrek doesn't except definitions from the oxford dictionary (or dictionary.com) he says they are left wing biased.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Jerrek doesn't except definitions from the oxford dictionary (or dictionary.com) he says they are left wing biased.

Yep. I remember...

[Scarlett]

Looks like at least one person in the US had decided to take things into his own hands...

same sex marrage

Looks like this is going to be decided one way or the other in the courts now, should be an interesting fight!

[downquark1]

The theory makes perfect logical sense:

Random mutations that can be inherited (science has proved this bit)
Those who can't survive the current conditions (which are subject to change) die preventing their genes from being passed on, it's as simple as that.

It's hard to prove that we specifically came from monkeys, but that doesn't debunk the entire theory.

Originally Posted by Russ D

Ah, I see the movable goal posts are back out of storage again...!

Firstly I was not talking about *archaeological* discoveries (the study of man's past through the material remains of his culture), I was talking about the nonsensical claim that the eye "proves" the existance of god because if you take any part away from it, it stops working.

Secondly absence of evidence is *not* evidence of absence.

The problem with the links you provide is that the site seems to take a very anti-creationalism stance, so can hardly be seen as independant.

No, it takes a *scientific* stance which says that if you're going to claim something, it's a good idea to back it up with demonstrable facts and *permit* those facts to be analysed and scrutinised by others to determine their validity or falsity, not simply say "That's what it says in the Bible, therefore it's right".

Back on to the main subject - I don't think people on my side of the argument are against gays having some kind of ceremony, it's just to call it marriage would go against what *we* believe it should be for.

I suggest you look a bit deeper into what some of the "Concerned Christian" or "Moral Minority" groups out there are actually saying about the idea of *anything* to do with gays viz http://www.godhatesfags.com/ for instance.

And if the main thing most gays want is just recognition and legal rights as couples, I'm sure we can all meet in the middle somewhere.

I suggest you research the phrase "separate but equal" eg http://boston.indymedia.org/feature/...9615/index.php

[BBKing]

I think we have to clarify something about the difference between science and religion - one of the biggest confusions (deliberately, I think) in the whole creationism debate is to equate the position of a key part of Christianity with that of a small part of the body of science. I don't think they're remotely comparable in scope or size.

In particular the language used is important here -
proof:

'The Bible proves...'

'Science proves...'

Those usages equate biblical and scientific knowledge through terminology, and as say I don't think they're comparable. Scientific proof doesn't really exist as a concept, mathematical proof does and is much, much harder. Science tends to use hypothesis and theory, for very valid reasons, to whit:

All scientific theories are one step away from refutation, as they exist to lay out an explanation of observed phenomena on the basis of evidence and new evidence can come along at any time to upset the apple cart. In the case of religion no new evidence has come along for an awfully long time (ever?) hence religious beliefs are not open to refutation in this way. Hence scientific theories and religious beliefs are not comparable. Good scientists are willing to change or abandon theories in the face of new evidence. You quite often see religious anti-science arguments along the lines of 'you can't be right, you keep changing your mind, I don't change my mind, therefore I'm right'. I think this, as usual, misses the point.

belief:

'I believe in Jesus Christ our saviour'

'I believe in evolution'

Again equating biblical and scientific knowledge. I try and be careful to use belief to mean 'I accept this as so but I can't actually present any evidence' and prove to mean 'I accept this and have solid evidence I am willing to put forward to back me up.

I don't often use either word in fact, belief is too shaky and open to question and prove is too open to refutation. Science provides a decent half-way house, 'hypothesise' meaning 'I'm putting forward a view, here's the evidence I've gathered'. This separate word is required due to the emotional connotations of both 'proof' and 'belief'.

Going back to the start, therefore, if we are to compare biblical creationism with scientific evolution, we need to compare like with like. I'll leave as an exercise for the reader the rewriting of the Book of Genesis as a scientific theory, then we can compare directly. Alternatively rewrite On the Origin of Species as the Book of Darwin.

As a parting word on this etymological mayhem, the word belief really doesn't have a lot of meaning beyond the emotional - a police officer who went into a courtroom and said 'I believe the defendant did it' and didn't present any evidence would be told to get out and stop wasting everyone's time.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherN00b

Your attitude towards the unemployed, your opinion that there should be equal % tax paid by all therefore transferring less wealth from rich to poor, complete incomprehension that you may ever come to rely on the state and will always be employed and relatively wealthy, your support of George Bush and his cabinet, which is certainly a somewhat less than democratically elected dictatorship of the rich, they seem to be as often as not millionaires, and certainly are quite happy to line pockets of the rich at the expense of those who will end up paying for the borrowing.

And this all relates to fascism, HOW EXACTLY? You have failed to answer my question.


However, regarding what you said, a few points:

- why should MY wealth be transferred by the government? Why can't I help people on my own accord?

- "your support of George Bush and his cabinet" -- What about this?

- "which is certainly a somewhat less than democratically elected dictatorship of the rich, they seem to be as often as not millionaires, and certainly are quite happy to line pockets of the rich at the expense of those who will end up paying for the borrowing." -- Explain in detail the following:

-- How is the current administration a dictatorship?

-- How do they line the pockets of the rich?

I would love to go to bed, sadly not an option right now, however I'm not posting any further on this now, I've said my piece, and certainly consider neo-conservatism and far-right views such as yours pretty close to facism.

You have FAILED to demonstrate how my views are fascist, and you are exactly proving my point that you have no clue what fascism is and you're using it as a cool word to throw around to make me look bad. When confronted with WHY and HOW, you just say "I've said my piece" and imply you're right, everyone is wrong. Who is intolerant now?

Originally Posted by BBKing

I'm puzzled here. You're using Hitler's words to support your argument that you're not a fascist? I can't help feeling this rather undermines your position. Either you believe him which means you're extremely gullible or a Hitler supporter, or you don't believe them in which case why hell use them to support your argument?

I'll read the rest later. One or two interesting points raised.

BBKing, I'm using Hitler's own words how he described what nazism (fascism's brother) is. He implemented a Nazi state. Now I want you and others to explain how I fit into the beliefs, because as I pointed out, it is clearly the opposite of what I believe and quite similiar what socialists believe.

Originally Posted by Bifta

Because one day you might through no fault of your own end up poor too ... then you'll be glad of it.

Actually no. Charity, perhaps, not not forced charity by the government. That isn't charity, that is stealing. And I thought all of you have to pay this national insurance!

Originally Posted by downquark1

Just because some far right philosopher with a chip on her shoulder says it doesn't make it true, it is her rather unusual opinion. She may argue it, but I see countless flaws in her logic. By her definitions an absolute Monarchy would be left wing.

And as I've said several times over, BRING ARGUMENTS to support your point, and ARGUMENTS to counter my points. However, you keep falling into this hole of attacking the author.

Second, I believe I've also quoted Hitler, a man who implemented Nazism, and I've also quoted the goals of Nazism.

Now bring some arguments to the table.

Originally Posted by downquark1

So let me get this straight, you support the dog eat dog, survival of the fittest, right wing capitalism, yet reject evolution (the same principles).

Please clearly explain how you relate right-wing capitalism to evolution.

One is a theory to explain the origins of the universe, the other is an economic and social model of individual freedom.

They are not related.

Originally Posted by downquark1

You are orthodox Christian, yet reject the unconditional love of Jesus Christ.

Please explain this too.

Originally Posted by downquark1

You support the American constitution yet believe religion should influence the government

Please provide a citation where I said this.

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.

Originally Posted by waddy

You are aware that carbon dating isn`t used to date rocks?

Well my apologies. I should have said radiometric dating.

Originally Posted by scastle

Now, you yourself have admitted to being right wing (although not extreme), and sometimes come across as being intolerant. Maybe thats what Justanothernoob meant

Fascinating. Yes I'm aware some dictionaries love to apply right-wing to fascism and nazism, but please, bring ARGUMENTS TO THE TABLE.. I have supplied ample evidence. Just saying "because they said so" isn't enough. EXPLAIN to me how fascism is right-wing, and I guarantee you if you can do that, I'll change my mind.

Originally Posted by scastle

I find it interesting that people (not aimed at you in particular Jerrek) are willing to accept the Bible as proof (and let's face it, the bible could be fictional), but dismiss Evolution as unproven.

Then by all means!!!! Present the proof here and I will believe it! PLEASE!

Originally Posted by Nor

Like many, you call for absolute proof of evolution, but are happy to believe as Gospel words in a book written 2000 years ago with tales of magic and gods. Its faith I guess that makes the difference.

I have more faith in science myself.

Aaah, excellent point! And I prefer to put my faith in God rather than humanity.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Jerrek doesn't except definitions from the oxford dictionary (or dictionary.com) he says they are left wing biased.

I'm not accepting it, because, it doesn't make sense. All I'm asking for is an explanation. That is all.



[quote]

Originally Posted by downquark1

The theory makes perfect logical sense:

Random mutations that can be inherited (science has proved this bit)

Please provide me with proof of this. I do not believe you.






All I'm asking for is clarification how and why you put fascism on the right (not just a definition from some dictionary), and, conclusive proof of evolution.

[Sociable]

Top Post BBK sage words as always.

At the risk of being shot down is this perhaps an ideal closing point for the debate which has become so polarized neither side is going to back down?

IMHO Now is the time for all good men/women to politely agree to disagree and move on.

Originally Posted by BBKing

[Snip of a very sensible post]

As a parting word on this etymological mayhem, the word belief really doesn't have a lot of meaning beyond the emotional

To quote Philip K Dick: Reality is that which, when we cease to believe in it, still exists!

Originally Posted by Jerrek

[Big snip] All I'm asking for is clarification how and why you put fascism on the right (not just a definition from some dictionary), and, conclusive proof of evolution.

Oh well if that's *ALL* you're asking for...!!

OK all, I rarely start off threads that have direct religious connotations, but the 'gay marriage' thread really is getting waaaay off topic. I'm having trouble wading through posts discussing Evolution, homosexual union, fascism and the definition of truth, reason and belief all in the same thread.

So, can I respectfully suggest that we move discussion of the theory of our origins to this new thread - a lot of valid points and questions have been raised that deserve discussion with out distraction, I think.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

- why should MY wealth be transferred by the government? Why can't I help people on my own accord?

Of course that option is open to you, but with the views you have expressed on various threads in this forum I cannot seen you being inclined to do so voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

-- How is the current administration a dictatorship?

Perhaps through their attempts to equate unquestioning obedience of the government with being patriotic. The prevailing attitude in the USA seems to be that if you show even the slightest iota of dissent you are branded as being unpatriotic. FUD can be a powerful tool.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

-- How do they line the pockets of the rich?

The government's policies are primarily dictated by the lobbyists of big business.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

BBKing, I'm using Hitler's own words how he described what nazism (fascism's brother) is. He implemented a Nazi state. Now I want you and others to explain how I fit into the beliefs, because as I pointed out, it is clearly the opposite of what I believe and quite similiar what socialists believe.

That's ok then, you've got Hitler on your side

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Actually no. Charity, perhaps, not not forced charity by the government. That isn't charity, that is stealing. And I thought all of you have to pay this national insurance!

No, it's called taxation. It has been suggested many times before, but you really should go and get a dictionary.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

And as I've said several times over, BRING ARGUMENTS to support your point, and ARGUMENTS to counter my points. However, you keep falling into this hole of attacking the author.

Second, I believe I've also quoted Hitler, a man who implemented Nazism, and I've also quoted the goals of Nazism.

Now bring some arguments to the table.

Why don`t you bring some arguments to the table then. You complain about people attacking the authors whose articles you post links to, but if that is all you can bring then where are your arguments.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Well my apologies. I should have said radiometric dating.

If you are going to make such basic errors then why should be have any faith in the veracity of any statements of "fact" you make? You can be the first one to pounce if anyone makes even the slightest error in their posts, but you can`t handle it when the same treatment is given to your tirades.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Please provide me with proof of this. I do not believe you.

You've probably never heard of it, but there is this thing called Google, but that would mean that you would have to pull your head from the sand. I suspect that it would be beyond you to research your own sources that refute your arguments as then you'd have a hard time arguing against said source.

[BBKing]

BBKing, I'm using Hitler's own words how he described what nazism (fascism's brother) is. He implemented a Nazi state. Now I want you and others to explain how I fit into the beliefs, because as I pointed out, it is clearly the opposite of what I believe and quite similiar what socialists believe.

I didn't say I thought you were a fascist, in fact I don't think I've ascribed any characteristics to you. I did wonder why you were partly relying on Hitler's own words to support your view that you weren't a fascist. Surely there are more credible sources around?

Incidentally, the party Hitler joined in 1919 (called the German Worker's Party at that time) was definitely right wing. As early as 1920 he thought that Socialism and Jewry were linked in some plot to bring down Germany, which hardly makes him a Socialist. His backing at the time was from conservative intellectuals and the military, both anti-socialism, and they saw him as a useful propagandist.

Quotation:

The Allies he believed had been more successful at mobilising public opinion and that the Germans had lost the war in large measure because of socialist propaganda undermining their morale. By 1920 he was openly of the view that socialist propaganda had been employed in the ultimate interest of international Jewry.

New thread anyone?