In Defense of the Marriage

[Sociable]

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".

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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).

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

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?

[BBKing]

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

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

[downquark1]

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

Do you deny that children look like their parents now?

Originally Posted by downquark1
You are orthodox Christian, yet reject the unconditional love of Jesus Christ.

Jesus met with criminals, outcasts, infidels and was never disrespectful to them, he was usually charitable. This does seems to contradict your opinions.

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.

He said "adam and steve" as your argument - this is a religious reference.

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.

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?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by dellwear

Surely the fact that Dinosaurs are now know not to have co-existed with humans disproves some of the statements above that say they were told of in the bible (book of job I beleve).

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

Of course there's the "world flood" mentioned in the bible which was actually localised to the black sea...

No.

Quite why you should base your beliefs and behaviour around this escapes me. After all you can read much the same thing in your local paper.

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

In fact 'not written in exactly the same way as it was written in ancient times' would appear to sum it up

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.

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".

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

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.

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

'The Bible proves...'

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by waddy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by waddy

Perhaps through their attempts to equate unquestioning obedience of the government with being patriotic.

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

Originally Posted by waddy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by waddy

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

Fascinating. Please explain.

Originally Posted by waddy

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

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

Originally Posted by waddy

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

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.

Originally Posted by waddy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by waddy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BBKing

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?

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?

Originally Posted by BBKing

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sociable

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.

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

Originally Posted by Sociable

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sociable

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

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.

Originally Posted by scastle

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).

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

Originally Posted by downquark1

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

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.

Originally Posted by downquark1

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

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.

Originally Posted by downquark1

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

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

Originally Posted by downquark1

Do you deny that children look like their parents now?

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.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Jesus met with criminals, outcasts, infidels and was never disrespectful to them, he was usually charitable. This does seems to contradict your opinions

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.

Originally Posted by downquark1

He said "adam and steve" as your argument - this is a religious reference.

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."

Originally Posted by downquark1

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Russ D

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

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

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

However, if you are burning U.S. flags in the street

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Fascinating. Please explain.

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?

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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

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.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Russ D

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

I have it on very good authority :

Top Ten Dinosaur Myths

Top Ten Dinosaur Myths
1. Humans coexisted with dinosaurs

Dinosaurs and people can coexist only in books, movies and cartoons. The last dinosaurs - other than birds - died about 65 million years ago, while the first humans did not evolve until about 2 million years ago.

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

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

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.

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?

[downquark1]

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

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,

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.

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?

[Stuartbe]

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 !!!