Recommended Posts
halorob 0
QuoteQuoteNo it doesn't.
Uh, yeah...it does.
|Context box| You have officially taken the statement out of the box.
QuoteQuoteQuoteNo it doesn't.
Uh, yeah...it does.
|Context box| You have officially taken the statement out of the box.
The statement had no purpose in the article other than to imply weed prevents cancer. It's really that simple.
Heck, I don't think it causes cancer any more than you probably do. What they should have stated was that there has never been a documented case of marijuana causing cancer. It is far more accurate, can be proven, and does not mislead the reader into think weed is some kind of cancer preventative substance.
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
...The religious types often want their particular brand of morality forced upon everyone else...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
More hostile stereotyping. Telling someone about God is not "forcing" anything. I could provide numerous examples of how secular humanism has been forced on us via legislation, court rulings, and other public policy decisions. It is not the Christians (at least not the ones on the right) who are demanding new laws making it a crime not to follow their advice.
Over the past 30 or so years I have spoken to people about skydiving, often with enthusiasm and detail. I have invited people to visit the DZ and check it out, and have encouraged some to give it a try. Frequently the topic came up in the form of responding to their ignorant stereotypes. Many of these conversations involved people who were not at all interested in participating. But in all these years, nobody has accused me of "forcing" skydiving on them or ramming parachuting "down their throat."
Cheers,
Jon
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
More hostile stereotyping. Telling someone about God is not "forcing" anything. I could provide numerous examples of how secular humanism has been forced on us via legislation, court rulings, and other public policy decisions. It is not the Christians (at least not the ones on the right) who are demanding new laws making it a crime not to follow their advice.
Over the past 30 or so years I have spoken to people about skydiving, often with enthusiasm and detail. I have invited people to visit the DZ and check it out, and have encouraged some to give it a try. Frequently the topic came up in the form of responding to their ignorant stereotypes. Many of these conversations involved people who were not at all interested in participating. But in all these years, nobody has accused me of "forcing" skydiving on them or ramming parachuting "down their throat."
Cheers,
Jon
okalb 78
Quote...The religious types often want their particular brand of morality forced upon everyone else...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
More hostile stereotyping. Telling someone about God is not "forcing" anything. I could provide numerous examples of how secular humanism has been forced on us via legislation, court rulings, and other public policy decisions. It is not the Christians (at least not the ones on the right) who are demanding new laws making it a crime not to follow their advice.
Cheers,
Jon
And there you go with the persecution crap again. I guess we can always count on you to show how hard the christians have it. In reality the christians in this country have been trying for years to legislate morality. You may find a few examples of the non religious trying to legislate away from religion, but there are at least hundreds if not thousands of examples of the opposite happening. I agree that telling someone about god is not forcing anything. That is not what I was referring to. But, the minute you start to try to pass laws to legislate what you believe to be the ‘correct’ morals, you are no longer telling people, you are forcing them.
I was really not trying to get into a religious debate. There are enough threads about that. I only brought religion into the discussion because Ron was talking negatively about people who look to drugs and alcohol as a crutch when he clearly does the same using god. You also picked one sentence out of my post and chose to attack it rather than address the main issue of the post. Which, in case you missed it, was to say that using drugs and alcohol to escape mentally into an alternate reality or find comfort is no different than using religion to do the same. The same way that most addicts will deny that what they do is a problem, the extremely religious will deny that they have a dependency. The same way the vast majority of the people that use drugs and alcohol do so responsibly in a way that doesn’t harm others, the vast majority of the religious do the same. It is the extreme from both groups that cause the problem for the rest. Once again, I couldn’t care less either way what your addiction is as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone else, but to say one is a better solution than the other is bullshit. In your world to you it might be. To someone who thinks your beliefs are crap it may not be. Who are you to decide that you are right and they are wrong.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
halorob 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNo it doesn't.
Uh, yeah...it does.
|Context box| You have officially taken the statement out of the box.
The statement had no purpose in the article other than to imply weed prevents cancer. It's really that simple.
Heck, I don't think it causes cancer any more than you probably do. What they should have stated was that there has never been a documented case of marijuana causing cancer. It is far more accurate, can be proven, and does not mislead the reader into think weed is some kind of cancer preventative substance.
What are we arguing about anyways? I just wanted to post a witty comment.
In other conversations I have listed numerous examples of laws being passed which take our freedoms away and force us to do what the secular left thinks we should do.
The left does not make suggestions. They make laws. If you don't do what they tell you to do you appear before a judge, and if you resist you can be shot by police.
A short list would include such things as seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, anti-smoking restrictions on privately-owned businesses, anti-gun laws, open container laws, HOV lanes, anti-"discrimination" laws which overrule private property rights, laws forcing business owners to keep track of & report employees' racial information, minimum wage laws, campus speech codes, attempts to criminalize spanking, etc.
If you look at the long list of things we were free to do 30 years ago, but which are illegal today, you'll see the fingerprints of liberal Democrats all over the place. Yes, these laws frequently are passed with Republican votes, but these ideas are driven by the left. The culprit is the religion of secular humanism, which is based on the belief that there is no God, and that mankind can be perfected by tightly controlling behavior through legislation & litigation.
When the schools refuse to acknowledge basic moral standards regarding sexuality, and instead impose the "safe sex" dogma on my kids, they are forcing their secular religion down our collective throats. When they send police after me for driving alone in the left highway lane without a seat belt, they are imposing their narrow brand of religion on me.
It is the left that supports a legal system which uses lawsuits to punish people not for doing bad things, but for failing to prevent bad things from happening.
If you slip & fall in Wal-Mart it's your own damn fault for not watching where you're going. If you think Wal-Mart is responsible for failing to prevent you from your own carelessness, you probably voted for Obama. Remember this the next time you have to fill out a multi-page waiver when you visit a DZ because the culture has been brainwashed into a knee-jerk anti-business mentality that believes that businesses (or "corporations") are responsible for every unfortunate incident that occurs on their property.
We are a much less free country than we were in 1980. It is not the Robertsons, Falwells, Reagans, Bushs, or Limbaughs that are responsible for this.
Every time you cast a vote for a Democrat you are voting away your money and your freedom but you'll keep doing it because the alternative is to accept that you live in a country with a strong Christian heritage and stop treating this as something to be resisted at all costs.
Liberals are pro-choice about abortion and anti-choice about everything else.
Cheers,
Jon
The left does not make suggestions. They make laws. If you don't do what they tell you to do you appear before a judge, and if you resist you can be shot by police.
A short list would include such things as seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, anti-smoking restrictions on privately-owned businesses, anti-gun laws, open container laws, HOV lanes, anti-"discrimination" laws which overrule private property rights, laws forcing business owners to keep track of & report employees' racial information, minimum wage laws, campus speech codes, attempts to criminalize spanking, etc.
If you look at the long list of things we were free to do 30 years ago, but which are illegal today, you'll see the fingerprints of liberal Democrats all over the place. Yes, these laws frequently are passed with Republican votes, but these ideas are driven by the left. The culprit is the religion of secular humanism, which is based on the belief that there is no God, and that mankind can be perfected by tightly controlling behavior through legislation & litigation.
When the schools refuse to acknowledge basic moral standards regarding sexuality, and instead impose the "safe sex" dogma on my kids, they are forcing their secular religion down our collective throats. When they send police after me for driving alone in the left highway lane without a seat belt, they are imposing their narrow brand of religion on me.
It is the left that supports a legal system which uses lawsuits to punish people not for doing bad things, but for failing to prevent bad things from happening.
If you slip & fall in Wal-Mart it's your own damn fault for not watching where you're going. If you think Wal-Mart is responsible for failing to prevent you from your own carelessness, you probably voted for Obama. Remember this the next time you have to fill out a multi-page waiver when you visit a DZ because the culture has been brainwashed into a knee-jerk anti-business mentality that believes that businesses (or "corporations") are responsible for every unfortunate incident that occurs on their property.
We are a much less free country than we were in 1980. It is not the Robertsons, Falwells, Reagans, Bushs, or Limbaughs that are responsible for this.
Every time you cast a vote for a Democrat you are voting away your money and your freedom but you'll keep doing it because the alternative is to accept that you live in a country with a strong Christian heritage and stop treating this as something to be resisted at all costs.
Liberals are pro-choice about abortion and anti-choice about everything else.
Cheers,
Jon
okalb 78
So you still respond to everything except my actual post.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
RonD1120 58
QuoteSo you still respond to everything except my actual post.
I think my post #56 answered your question.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
okalb 78
QuoteSomeone with a substance use disorder needs to replace their faith in mood altering chemicals with faith in something greater to live sober.
First of all, I know many that are living proof that the above statement just isn't true. The only "faith" they needed was a desire to quit. Anyway, I already heard YOUR answer to my post. While I disagree with almost every post I have ever read of yours, I respect the fact that you feel you are trying to help. I respect the fact that you truly believe what you say. I was really looking for his response. Given the "reality" that he believes I wanted to hear what he had to say.
Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana
DJL 232
QuoteWhile I have tasted the party and will probabaly do so again, count me among those who think the government has a legitimate interest in keeping illegal drugs illegal. It sets a standard: This is not a good idea and is not acceptable. (After all, who ever looked back on their life and said "Damn, I wish I had done more drugs..."?) People who wish to participate should respect this standard and be discreet.
The real problem is the increasing totalitarian police state, and the role played by drug laws. Some of the most offensive police conduct can be justified by claiming they were looking for drug violations. Behavior that was understood to be unconstitutional 30 years ago is commonplace today, and the primary reason given has to do with drugs.
Police roadblocks, automobile searches, property confiscation, workplace drug testing, etc. are far more offensive and far more dangerous to a free society than the guy who has a bag of weed in the glove compartment.
Small-potatoes violations should result in a ticket, not an arrest. This policy would enforce the basic legal standard while still keeping things in perspective.
Cheers,
Jon S.
There are a lot of states where possession (of a certain quantity) is not an arrest just because it's so prevalent that the police would spend all of their time transporting people and would need somewhere to put all the cars. So they just issue a citation with a notice to appear in court.
"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher
ibx 2
QuoteA short list would include such things as seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, anti-smoking restrictions on privately-owned businesses, anti-gun laws, open container laws, HOV lanes, anti-"discrimination" laws which overrule private property rights, laws forcing business owners to keep track of & report employees' racial information, minimum wage laws, campus speech codes, attempts to criminalize spanking, etc.
While this is true, some of your examples are plain ridiculous. Having laws enforcing people to buckle up which without a doudt saves lives,which is a good thing. It is one thing if are an adult, it's another thing if you keep your children from buckling up and letting them die a horrible car accident, caused by someone who had the choice of driving drunk because following your logic that should not be illegal either. The same goes for wearing bicycle helmets. Here in Germany Children have to wear a biclycle helmet until they are 14.
QuoteWhen the schools refuse to acknowledge basic moral standards regarding sexuality, and instead impose the "safe sex" dogma on my kids, they are forcing their secular religion down our collective throats. When they send police after me for driving alone in the left highway lane without a seat belt, they are imposing their narrow brand of religion on me.
Why should religion dictate what basic moral standards are? Are you not shoving an even narrower religous brand down their throats?
Unwanted Teen pregnancy is much bigger problem in religious comunitys because teens tend to fuck around, there is no stopping them.(I can find the stats if you like.) It's much wiser to tell them what the risks are and which precautions to take. What right do you have to deny teens the pleasure of sex, based on a ridiculous moral code that has no basis? Where in the Bible does it say at which age one should have sex ? And lets not start about the 4000 year old notion that premartial sex is a bad thing !
If you think so, please elobroate with a single reason, not implying the belief in God.
I live in Germany, according to statistics german Teens have their first sex at the age of around 14. I don't see Germany morally decaying, what I see are less abortions and unwanted pregnancys. Children in Germany get Sex Ed at the age of 12 in school, and that is good thing !
QuoteIf you slip & fall in Wal-Mart it's your own damn fault for not watching where you're going. If you think Wal-Mart is responsible for failing to prevent you from your own carelessness, you probably voted for Obama. Remember this the next time you have to fill out a multi-page waiver when you visit a DZ because the culture has been brainwashed into a knee-jerk anti-business mentality that believes that businesses (or "corporations") are responsible for every unfortunate incident that occurs on their property.
I completly agree. That is a problem of the US legal system and espeically greedy lawyers. Lawsuits like that get immediatly dismissed in the german legal system. Why not in America ?
halorob 0
QuoteQuoteA short list would include such things as seat belt laws, bicycle helmet laws, anti-smoking restrictions on privately-owned businesses, anti-gun laws, open container laws, HOV lanes, anti-"discrimination" laws which overrule private property rights, laws forcing business owners to keep track of & report employees' racial information, minimum wage laws, campus speech codes, attempts to criminalize spanking, etc.
While this is true, some of your examples are plain ridiculous. Having laws enforcing people to buckle up which without a doudt saves lives,which is a good thing. It is one thing if are an adult, it's another thing if you keep your children from buckling up and letting them die a horrible car accident, caused by someone who had the choice of driving drunk because following your logic that should not be illegal either. The same goes for wearing bicycle helmets. Here in Germany Children have to wear a biclycle helmet until they are 14.QuoteWhen the schools refuse to acknowledge basic moral standards regarding sexuality, and instead impose the "safe sex" dogma on my kids, they are forcing their secular religion down our collective throats. When they send police after me for driving alone in the left highway lane without a seat belt, they are imposing their narrow brand of religion on me.
Why should religion dictate what basic moral standards are? Are you not shoving an even narrower religous brand down their throats?
Unwanted Teen pregnancy is much bigger problem in religious comunitys because teens tend to fuck around, there is no stopping them.(I can find the stats if you like.) It's much wiser to tell them what the risks are and which precautions to take. What right do you have to deny teens the pleasure of sex, based on a ridiculous moral code that has no basis? Where in the Bible does it say at which age one should have sex ? And lets not start about the 4000 year old notion that premartial sex is a bad thing !
If you think so, please elobroate with a single reason, not implying the belief in God.
I live in Germany, according to statistics german Teens have their first sex at the age of around 14. I don't see Germany morally decaying, what I see are less abortions and unwanted pregnancys. Children in Germany get Sex Ed at the age of 12 in school, and that is good thing !QuoteIf you slip & fall in Wal-Mart it's your own damn fault for not watching where you're going. If you think Wal-Mart is responsible for failing to prevent you from your own carelessness, you probably voted for Obama. Remember this the next time you have to fill out a multi-page waiver when you visit a DZ because the culture has been brainwashed into a knee-jerk anti-business mentality that believes that businesses (or "corporations") are responsible for every unfortunate incident that occurs on their property.
I completly agree. That is a problem of the US legal system and espeically greedy lawyers. Lawsuits like that get immediatly dismissed in the german legal system. Why not in America ?
Thats why I wrote in Ron MF'in Paul for president. I'd advise you to do the same. F.O.
QuoteThat is a problem of the US legal system and espeically greedy lawyers. Lawsuits like that get immediatly dismissed in the german legal system. Why not in America ?
It's part of the job creation plan. Can you imagine how many lawyers would be out of work if judges just tossed every case that was stupid?
HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
...some of your examples are plain ridiculous. Having laws enforcing people to buckle up which without a doubt saves lives...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
So would banning the wheel. Nothing wrong with seat belts, I've been wearing them for over 40 years. The issue is liberty & freedom. Either we're a free country or we're not. If we are, why are we hauling people into court simply for refusing to do what Democrats tell them to do? (Please don't tell me I should not be allowed to jump without an AAD...)
...car accident, caused by someone who had the choice of driving drunk because following your logic that should not be illegal either...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No, never said that. Drunk driving (as defined by legal standards in place 30 years ago) should be illegal for obvious public safety reasons. My quarrel is with all these stupid ancillary laws which do nothing to enhance public safety but are driven by politicians trying to prove they "care." Thus we have introduced the whole concept of police roadblocks into "free" America, coupled with laws criminalizing such things as open containers and passengers drinking. (As long as the driver is sober there is no threat to public safety.)
...Here in Germany Children have to wear a bicycle helmet until they are 14....
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Um... At this point in history, there are many, many people worldwide who, when discussing matters of freedom, liberty, and public policy, might not respond with enthusiasm to any argument that begins "Here in Germany..."
Do you make your kids wear a helmet while riding in the car? If not, why not? Don't you love your kids? Etc. etc. etc....
...Why should religion dictate what basic moral standards are?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why not?
Seriously, where do you get your moral standards? You offer knee-jerk rejection of "religion," but if someone enters into a business agreement with you, or a marriage, or meets you alone on a dark street late at night, and does not treat you according to Biblical moral standards, you are going to be pretty upset about it.
...Are you not shoving an even narrower religous brand down their throats?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No, I'm not. I'm defending a standard.
I mentioned several examples of how the secular left is "shoving" its narrow religious brand down our throats through legislation, litigation, and other public policy decisions. You missed it.
...Unwanted Teen pregnancy is much bigger problem in religious comunitys because teens tend to fuck around, there is no stopping them...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Don't know how you're defining "religious," but the fact is that young people who understand and accept Biblical standards are less likely to get involved in such behavior. (Not that it can't happen, as sexual temptation is one of the oldest temptations known to mankind.)
A teenager who has been raised to respect Christian standards might still be tempted to get involved with a steady boyfriend she loves, for example, but will not be as likely to give herself away to a stranger she meets on vacation as another teen who has been raised to believe that there is no God, no absolute moral standards, that people who believe this stuff are clueless idiots, and has been given a pack of condoms by her parents (or teachers) to celebrate her trip.
C'mon, think about it. Twelve years later you're dating her and thinking about marrying her. To which would you rather be committing the rest of your life?
...What right do you have to deny teens the pleasure of sex, based on a ridiculous moral code...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hmm... Any chance you might have a real hot teenage daughter or sister I might take out for "pizza?" I'm sure you'd have no problem with this. You have forfeited your right to declare this behavior wrong in any way.
...please elabroate with a single reason, not implying the belief in God...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
That's really the most important issue, isn't it?
...I live in Germany, according to statistics german Teens have their first sex at the age of around 14. I don't see Germany morally decaying...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The fact that you speak so casually about sexually active 14 year-olds speaks volumes about the level of moral decay in your neighborhood.
Cheers,
Jon
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
So would banning the wheel. Nothing wrong with seat belts, I've been wearing them for over 40 years. The issue is liberty & freedom. Either we're a free country or we're not. If we are, why are we hauling people into court simply for refusing to do what Democrats tell them to do? (Please don't tell me I should not be allowed to jump without an AAD...)
...car accident, caused by someone who had the choice of driving drunk because following your logic that should not be illegal either...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No, never said that. Drunk driving (as defined by legal standards in place 30 years ago) should be illegal for obvious public safety reasons. My quarrel is with all these stupid ancillary laws which do nothing to enhance public safety but are driven by politicians trying to prove they "care." Thus we have introduced the whole concept of police roadblocks into "free" America, coupled with laws criminalizing such things as open containers and passengers drinking. (As long as the driver is sober there is no threat to public safety.)
...Here in Germany Children have to wear a bicycle helmet until they are 14....
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Um... At this point in history, there are many, many people worldwide who, when discussing matters of freedom, liberty, and public policy, might not respond with enthusiasm to any argument that begins "Here in Germany..."
Do you make your kids wear a helmet while riding in the car? If not, why not? Don't you love your kids? Etc. etc. etc....
...Why should religion dictate what basic moral standards are?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why not?
Seriously, where do you get your moral standards? You offer knee-jerk rejection of "religion," but if someone enters into a business agreement with you, or a marriage, or meets you alone on a dark street late at night, and does not treat you according to Biblical moral standards, you are going to be pretty upset about it.
...Are you not shoving an even narrower religous brand down their throats?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
No, I'm not. I'm defending a standard.
I mentioned several examples of how the secular left is "shoving" its narrow religious brand down our throats through legislation, litigation, and other public policy decisions. You missed it.
...Unwanted Teen pregnancy is much bigger problem in religious comunitys because teens tend to fuck around, there is no stopping them...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Don't know how you're defining "religious," but the fact is that young people who understand and accept Biblical standards are less likely to get involved in such behavior. (Not that it can't happen, as sexual temptation is one of the oldest temptations known to mankind.)
A teenager who has been raised to respect Christian standards might still be tempted to get involved with a steady boyfriend she loves, for example, but will not be as likely to give herself away to a stranger she meets on vacation as another teen who has been raised to believe that there is no God, no absolute moral standards, that people who believe this stuff are clueless idiots, and has been given a pack of condoms by her parents (or teachers) to celebrate her trip.
C'mon, think about it. Twelve years later you're dating her and thinking about marrying her. To which would you rather be committing the rest of your life?
...What right do you have to deny teens the pleasure of sex, based on a ridiculous moral code...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Hmm... Any chance you might have a real hot teenage daughter or sister I might take out for "pizza?" I'm sure you'd have no problem with this. You have forfeited your right to declare this behavior wrong in any way.
...please elabroate with a single reason, not implying the belief in God...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
That's really the most important issue, isn't it?
...I live in Germany, according to statistics german Teens have their first sex at the age of around 14. I don't see Germany morally decaying...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The fact that you speak so casually about sexually active 14 year-olds speaks volumes about the level of moral decay in your neighborhood.
Cheers,
Jon
ibx 2
QuoteSo would banning the wheel. Nothing wrong with seat belts, I've been wearing them for over 40 years. The issue is liberty & freedom. Either we're a free country or we're not. If we are, why are we hauling people into court simply for refusing to do what Democrats tell them to do? (Please don't tell me I should not be allowed to jump without an AAD...)
Well you do not live in free country and it is impossible for a civilised society with more than 200 people to exist without rules (laws). You do not have the freedom to take what you want, you do not have the freedom kill who want. All these things can be considered freedom, where would you draw the line ?
A society with complete freedom is simply called anarchy.
And I don't mind anyone jumping without an AAD as long you're licensed.
Quote
No, never said that. Drunk driving (as defined by legal standards in place 30 years ago) should be illegal for obvious public safety reasons. My quarrel is with all these stupid ancillary laws which do nothing to enhance public safety but are driven by politicians trying to prove they "care." Thus we have introduced the whole concept of police roadblocks into "free" America, coupled with laws criminalizing such things as open containers and passengers drinking. (As long as the driver is sober there is no threat to public safety.)
I agree with you on all of these points. We can drink in the car, in the train and in public legally in Germany, and hell we do.
Quote
Um... At this point in history, there are many, many people worldwide who, when discussing matters of freedom, liberty, and public policy, might not respond with enthusiasm to any argument that begins "Here in Germany..."
Come on man, I thought you were smarter than that. What you are implying happened three to four generations ago. If we go even further back I can think of a nice little story of conquest, where immigrants almost erased an entire indigenous population for their land.
I don't even want to start with much more recent history, the last decade, where the US illegally invaded two sovereign country's, illegally detained and tortured hundreds if not thousands of citizens of foreign country's, without any form of trial. I don't think the US has any moral high ground in the eyes of the world.
So please cut out the cheap shots.
Quote
...Why should religion dictate what basic moral standards are?...
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Why not?
Who decides which religion offers these basic moral standards? This still implies that there is a set of basic moral standards, which there is not. These change with history. In the old testament it was totally ok to kill your son for speaking back to you. (Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)) This changed with the new testament.
This is also evidenced by the fact that every religion has different moral standards.
There are plenty of examples:
Islam: Forced marriage at a very young age for girls. This is perfectly moral according to some scholars of Islam. Just like stoning raped woman to death.
Judaism: It is completely immoral to do labour on the Sabbath, it is immoral to eat pork.....
This list can go and on. I'm sure you realise what I am trying to say.
QuoteDon't know how you're defining "religious," but the fact is that young people who understand and accept Biblical standards are less likely to get involved in such behavior. (Not that it can't happen, as sexual temptation is one of the oldest temptations known to mankind.)
A teenager who has been raised to respect Christian standards might still be tempted to get involved with a steady boyfriend she loves, for example, but will not be as likely to give herself away to a stranger she meets on vacation as another teen who has been raised to believe that there is no God, no absolute moral standards, that people who believe this stuff are clueless idiots, and has been given a pack of condoms by her parents (or teachers) to celebrate her trip.
C'mon, think about it. Twelve years later you're dating her and thinking about marrying her. To which would you rather be committing the rest of your life?
She will be tempted and if she does get sexually involved, is it not better for her to know that there are risks and dangers involved? STD's, unwanted pregnancy just to name two ? Why are you denying young people very important knowledge ? It is still up everyone to decide for themselves to use that knowledge.
Quote
Hmm... Any chance you might have a real hot teenage daughter or sister I might take out for "pizza?" I'm sure you'd have no problem with this. You have forfeited your right to declare this behavior wrong in any way.
I don't, but if I did I would not want her to go out with someone who likes to impose a belief system on her, and has no idea how practise safe sex! Other than that you would be welcome.
Quote
The fact that you speak so casually about sexually active 14 year-olds speaks volumes about the level of moral decay in your neighborhood.
Where do your morals come from? And I am still waiting for a reason for 14 olds not to have sex with each other. Other than crying: AAARGH IT'S MORALLY UNACCEPTABLE !
I am not talking about adults having sex with 14 year olds.
I am against that for the sole reason that young people are to impressionable and can easily be taken advantage of.
BTW. Age of consent is 16 in Germany.
Can you tell me why this bad ?
Quote
Come on man, I thought you were smarter than that. What you are implying happened three to four generations ago. If we go even further back I can think of a nice little story of conquest, where immigrants almost erased an entire indigenous population for their land.
I don't even want to start with much more recent history, the last decade, where the US illegally invaded two sovereign country's, illegally detained and tortured hundreds if not thousands of citizens of foreign country's, without any form of trial. I don't think the US has any moral high ground in the eyes of the world.
While I agree with the primary premise here, and consider WWII an extension of WWI, with all member of Europe sharing blame, there's still a pretty radical difference between detaining and torturing "hundreds if not thousands" and the systematic extermination of millions. The US can at least try to claim that they were torturing for intel on the enemy. Mengele was not.
Moving back to the present, we've had discussions here about Germany's conflict of free speech and wanting to suppress Nazi influenced groups that exist now. I fear that the approach of suppression only increases the possibility of it happening again. The devil you can see is preferably to the one you don't. And free speech should be free, or more bad can happen. A lack of open speech in the 30s certainly was a contributing factor.
I don't quite understand how this thread became a dichotomy of religion's attempts to make us believe, and atheist libs forcing safety regulations. Those are unrelated. And lots of religious types like passing moral laws to prevent us from having a good time, under the guise that it protects us. Hardly seems different than those espousing seat belts or helmets.
ibx 2
QuoteWhile I agree with the primary premise here, and consider WWII an extension of WWI, with all member of Europe sharing blame, there's still a pretty radical difference between detaining and torturing "hundreds if not thousands" and the systematic extermination of millions. The US can at least try to claim that they were torturing for intel on the enemy. Mengele was not.
I agree that the holocaust and Guantanamo Bay are not comparable . I was just trying to dismiss airmans sense of moral superiority based only on the fact that he is an American christian.
And lets not forget, you can't hold the sons accountable for the sins of the fathers. In this case grandfathers.
QuoteMoving back to the present, we've had discussions here about Germany's conflict of free speech and wanting to suppress Nazi influenced groups that exist now. I fear that the approach of suppression only increases the possibility of it happening again. The devil you can see is preferably to the one you don't. And free speech should be free, or more bad can happen. A lack of open speech in the 30s certainly was a contributing factor.
Germany is only actively oppressing right wing groups which openly or secretly convey anti constitutional ideas. These include: denying the holocaust, racial hatred, call to violence against minorities and anything that has to do with advocating violence against pretty much anybody.
You can very well say you loved Hitler and what he did. You may not however do the "Hitler Gruss", say "Sieg Heil", "Heil Hitler" and display Swastikas as these are considered anti constitutional signs.
Right Wing organizations are widely undermined by the "Verfassungsschutz" (which translates roughly to "Constitution Protection" an inland intelligence service) in Germany and very well watched by the government.
For now the Neo Nazis in Germany are just to plain stupid to be dangerous in any way. The NPD(National German Party) faced several financing scandals almost bankrupting them.
And one of their most important figures died a few months ago.
Quote
I don't quite understand how this thread became a dichotomy of religion's attempts to make us believe, and atheist libs forcing safety regulations. Those are unrelated. And lots of religious types like passing moral laws to prevent us from having a good time, under the guise that it protects us. Hardly seems different than those espousing seat belts or helmets.
There is a huge difference between moral laws, that protect you from exactly what? Gods wrath? and traffic safety laws. I have yet to see God's wrath in action. I can however see pictures of car wrecks and terrible accidents on autobahn's every week. Seat belts protect you from a very real threat.
Quote
There is a huge difference between moral laws, that protect you from exactly what? Gods wrath?
Well, aside from having a good time, they 'may' project you from drug overdoses, STDs, jealous girlfriends, unexpected children, etc. It's not less paternal than the other examples.
Uh, yeah...it does.
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites