ibx 2 #76 March 17, 2010 QuoteWell, 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. As far as I recall drugs are still illegal in the US, so the government already protects you from overdoses. STD', jealous girlfriends, and unexpected children are all sexually related and that is still a private matter. You do not want the government dictating, with womb, how often and how to have sex, so both examples have very little to do with one another and are not comparable. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #77 March 17, 2010 ...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)... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Are you defining a free country as one without any laws at all? Of course we've always had some basic laws designed to enforce basic standards, such as laws against stealing. My point is that every year we are faced with a new list of things we were once free to do but which are now illegal. This is the direct result of a secular humanist mind set, one which believes we can remove all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience if we just pass enough laws and tightly regulate people's behavior. Thus it has become a crime to allow smoking in a restaurant because liberal Democrats want to prove how much they "care" about your health. The alternative would be to prove how much they care about liberty & freedom, respect private property rights, and treat you as an adult capable of deciding whether you want to do business with the restaurant. ...where would you draw the line ?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ If you had some basic knowledge of our nation's Founders & the Biblical principles which motivated them you would not need to ask this. This stuff used to be taught in our schools. Everyone understood them regardless of their personal religious attitudes. In recent years the schools (tightly controlled by the left) have not been teaching these principles, thus creating a historically ignorant population that has been conditioned to accept secular humanism as society's "norm" and is more willing to accept increasing erosion of freedom in the name of "helping" people. As an arbirtary benchmark, I say we repeal all laws that have been imposed during the last 40 years. That way it would still be illegal to hurt people or take their stuff, but cops would not be harassing us for sleeping in our cars or for not wearing seat belts or smoking in a bar. ...And I don't mind anyone jumping without an AAD as long you're licensed... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Damn, here we go again. What does being licensed have to do with it? I wore an AAD on most of my student freefalls. When I was a few jumps away from graduating I bought a used rig and completed my training without one. The DZO simply reminded me that if I had a problem I would have to pull the reserve myself (something I had already done on my 14th jump.) I had over 100 jumps before I bothered to get my "A" license. Use of an AAD should be no different than use of a helmet, audible altimeter, or booties: completely up to the discretion of the individual. An AAD can be helpful in certain situations. It can also be harmful. Misfires are rare but can happen. I don't want my reserve firing as I'm climbing out to float, nor do I want the added expense & maintenance hassle that AAD's bring into our lives. It is the height of arrogant hypocrisy for a DZO to require AAD's for "safety" reasons, yet allow people to jump tiny fast mains that can kill you if you misjudge a landing approach. ...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... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ahh, left wing history revision. This crap is being taught in our schools, too. We err when we assign current societal standards to past historical events. This land did not "belong" to the Indians. They just happened to have arrived here prior to the European settlers. Shit happens and there were some unfortunate events, but there was also plenty of blame to go around. The Indians were a violent primitive people who were killing each other long before the white man waded ashore. At the time this was just a land mass, not an established country with borders & official immigration policies. Anyone had the right to come here and make a life. The civilizing influence of European culture, based on Judeo-Christian principles, produced far more good than bad. 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... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Stay away from the left-wing hate sites. We do not "invade" countries unless the objective is to stop bad people from hurting others. After fixing the problem we seek to pull back and return home, not take over. Yes, we used some very strong interrogation measures on a handful of high-level terrorist leaders for the purpose of gleaning information which SAVED many lives. We did not "torture" anyone, let alone hundreds of thousands of innocent people. ...So please cut out the cheap shots... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I understand why you say this, but it wasn't a cheap shot at all. You are articulating very well the secular humanist mind set, one which accepts without question a government which micro-manages its people and punishes them for refusing to comply. Many years ago I heard someone sum up the German attitude toward government authority thus: (Paraphrase) "If an elected leader in Germany imposed a 60mph speed limit on the autobahn, the German people would hate it but they would obey the law until the next election when they would vote out the people who imposed the law." ...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... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ God decides. The basic moral truth to which you referred in your Old Testament example has to do with respecting parents. My comments have to do with the role religion has played in America. We were founded as a Christian nation based upon Biblical principles. This provided a strong foundation of liberty & freedom. This foundation is being eroded due to the growing influence of secular humanism & its concomitant hostility to any suggestion of God. I have no use for Islam or any other false religion. Can anyone demonstrate how Islam or its followers have made the world a better place? Look at the way people live in Arab countries. What technology have they produced, what improvement in living standards during the past dozen or so centuries can be attributed to followers of Allah? If I want to strap on a bomb and kill a bunch of people at a bus station I must act contrary to the teachings of my religion. Muslims who do this stuff claim their holy book teaches them to treat people in this manner. Frankly, who cares about that worthless Allah or the losers who take him seriously? Christian America has provided a land where Muslims enjoy more freedom than they'll find in any Middle East nation. People who wish to pursue other religions have always been welcome here as long as they respect our culture & live their lives in peace. ...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?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Nobody is trying to deny knowledge. The issue is the way the information is presented. It is important to teach this stuff within a context of basic moral standards consistent with our Chrisitan-based culture. Young people who understand the ramifications of sexuality (including God's moral standards) are less likely to have to deal with stds, pregnancy, etc. But there are greater issues having to do with such things as self-respect. One reason we have statutory rape laws is that young people, particularly girls, have not developed the maturity to understand the ramifications of their behavior. If a woman likes a guy when she's 20 she'll probably like the same guy when she's 50. But a girl who likes a guy when she's 15 can look back on it just a few years later and say "Why'd I ever want to do that with him?" How does society benefit by having millions of young women growing into adulthood carrying the burden of a cheap sexual history on their resumes? ...I would not want her to go out with someone who likes to impose a belief system on her... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Here we go again with the terminology. How is encouraging young people to respect basic moral standards "imposing?" Any young woman who looks back on her life and regrets being pure & honorable can always change her mind and become a whore. But the woman who regrets the complications that come with being a slut cannot go back and get a do-over. ...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... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Huh? What's wrong with this? If a 14 year-old wants me to teach her what it means to be a woman, why not? You are rejecting the very authority that allows you to claim this kind of thing would be wrong in the first place. ..Can you tell me why this bad ?... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I just did. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fasted3 0 #78 March 17, 2010 I agree with you about there being too many laws to protect us from ourselves. As for the rest of your post, not so much.But what do I know? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #79 March 17, 2010 Jesus, how hard must it be to deal with simple helpful tools, such as - Quote - Quote - it's really pesky to read posts which do not show who is replying to whom at which post ...... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Airman1270 0 #80 March 18, 2010 QuoteJesus, how hard must it be to deal with simple helpful tools, such as - Quote - Quote - it's really pesky to read posts which do not show who is replying to whom at which post ...... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sorry. Still mostly computer illiterate. I admire the people who make this look easy. Cheers, Jon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #81 March 18, 2010 QuoteQuoteJesus, how hard must it be to deal with simple helpful tools, such as - Quote - Quote - it's really pesky to read posts which do not show who is replying to whom at which post ...... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sorry. Still mostly computer illiterate. I admire the people who make this look easy. Cheers, Jon QuoteYou speak I reply You speak Just change <> out for [] - I put the <> stuff inside the [] stuff so you can see how it works. You can nest it as deep as needed, although it gets confusing after more than 2 or 3 replies. Hope that helps.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ibx 2 #82 March 18, 2010 QuoteAre you defining a free country as one without any laws at all? Of course we've always had some basic laws designed to enforce basic standards, such as laws against stealing. My point is that every year we are faced with a new list of things we were once free to do but which are now illegal. This is the direct result of a secular humanist mind set, one which believes we can remove all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience if we just pass enough laws and tightly regulate people's behavior. Thus it has become a crime to allow smoking in a restaurant because liberal Democrats want to prove how much they "care" about your health. The alternative would be to prove how much they care about liberty & freedom, respect private property rights, and treat you as an adult capable of deciding whether you want to do business with the restaurant. ...where would you draw the line ?... Well a completely free would imply having no laws. I am however completely aware that is impossible. I would draw the line on public space. Especially when safety is involved. The seat belt example is perfect for this. If you are driving a car, you are traveling on public space, at this point the government has a responsibility to protect you, since you are a citizen and valuable commodity. There is no gain in you getting injured or killed. The same argument can be made for anti smoking laws in work places(What the laws are actually about.) I guess this could be an endless debate because there are endless rules and regulations which could be passed. I would advocate common sense, and since you said it yourself: Buckling up is common sense. QuoteIf you had some basic knowledge of our nation's Founders & the Biblical principles which motivated them you would not need to ask this. This stuff used to be taught in our schools. Everyone understood them regardless of their personal religious attitudes. In recent years the schools (tightly controlled by the left) have not been teaching these principles, thus creating a historically ignorant population that has been conditioned to accept secular humanism as society's "norm" and is more willing to accept increasing erosion of freedom in the name of "helping" people. I don't know why you religious people are constantly saying America was founded on Biblical principles. One of the most striking examples would be the 1st. amendment, stating freedom of religion, which directly contradicts at least two of the ten commandments. If of all things in the bible, do you not think that the 10 commandments in their entirety, would have been used as basis for the constitution? Speaking of historical ignorance: The best recent example is the Texas school board trying to exclude Thomas Jefferson from history lessons because of his opinion on the separation of church and state. Someone is living in denial. You are still speaking of some basic principles that you think are universal. As I have stated before basic moral principles change over time. And are vastly different in other cultures. As the world grows together these cultures will clash. The world view I am advocating is just the approach to a society that is based on irrefutable scientific fact and common sense. Not laws and morals which are thousands of years old and written by bronze age nomads which stand without being questioned. You believe that this is the word of God, as the Jews believe in the Talmud and the Muslims in Quo-ran. Any of these scriptures are equally valid in the eyes of their followers. Now the problem with this is that people are killing each other every day over which scripture has it correct. What is even more bizarre, is the fact that people are to this day killing each other over the interpretation of the one and the same scripture(Bible: Northern Ireland,Quo-Ran:Sunni vs. Shiite, The Jews are fighting over settling politics in the occupied territories). This shows just how clear Gods word is stated. Now using common sense, do you honestly think that one of these texts, over which there is no universal consensus, is a good basis for a country ? I would much rather prefer a constitution that may borrow a few ideas from these texts, but is not based on one. The founding fathers knew this and acted accordingly. QuoteAs an arbirtary benchmark, I say we repeal all laws that have been imposed during the last 40 years. That way it would still be illegal to hurt people or take their stuff, but cops would not be harassing us for sleeping in our cars or for not wearing seat belts or smoking in a bar. That would be indeed interesting. You realize however that the world has changed ? If we stay with the seatbelt example, traffic has increased at least 20 fold in the past 40 years. Check out: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx It only goes back to 1994, but the trend is obvious. Decreasing death rate with more licensed drivers. Now do you not think, different rules should apply ? Of course I am aware that its not only the seat belts, it's the much safer cars manufactures have to build, to comply with more arbitrary left wing rules. Speed Limits and public awareness and so on. Now would you like to see an increase in traffic fatalities so that you have freedom to not buckle up ? Now exactly how many lives are worth your freedom, to not fucking buckle up? Similar Arguments can made for any new Law restricting something. Some are more valid than others. QuoteDamn, here we go again. What does being licensed have to do with it? I wore an AAD on most of my student freefalls. When I was a few jumps away from graduating I bought a used rig and completed my training without one. The DZO simply reminded me that if I had a problem I would have to pull the reserve myself (something I had already done on my 14th jump.) I had over 100 jumps before I bothered to get my "A" license. Use of an AAD should be no different than use of a helmet, audible altimeter, or booties: completely up to the discretion of the individual. An AAD can be helpful in certain situations. It can also be harmful. Misfires are rare but can happen. I don't want my reserve firing as I'm climbing out to float, nor do I want the added expense & maintenance hassle that AAD's bring into our lives. It is the height of arrogant hypocrisy for a DZO to require AAD's for "safety" reasons, yet allow people to jump tiny fast mains that can kill you if you misjudge a landing approach. Since the AAD issue has been discussed at length by people who are much more competent than me. I will just give my opinion as a soon to be static line Instructor: This is about responsibility again. When a first jump student shows up at DZ he mostly knows virtually nothing about skydiving. This includes the involved risks. Any student knows he can bounce, he has not however been confronted with the possibility of for example a brain lock. I have seen a student, on a perfect canopy with a few line twists(common on static line jumps and trained for thoroughly), not react at all. He flew arms up, downwind into a clearing and broke his ankle. He did not react to radio. After he was found he reacted normally and said he had not been unconscious. He said he had just freaked. It was his second jump after an uneventful first. Brainlock of the century. Students are the most vulnerable skydivers out there. So as long as AAD's save lives, I am for them for students ! After acquiring an A License you should know enough about skydiving to decide for yourself. If any credible number shows up, stating AAD's cost more lives than they save, or are even completely worthless, I would be the first to abandon them. QuoteAhh, left wing history revision. This crap is being taught in our schools, too. We err when we assign current societal standards to past historical events. This land did not "belong" to the Indians. They just happened to have arrived here prior to the European settlers. Shit happens and there were some unfortunate events, but there was also plenty of blame to go around. The Indians were a violent primitive people who were killing each other long before the white man waded ashore. At the time this was just a land mass, not an established country with borders & official immigration policies. Anyone had the right to come here and make a life. The civilizing influence of European culture, based on Judeo-Christian principles, produced far more good than bad. Your logic is completely flawed. What would entitle you to a property ? A deed ? When the Indians where around there was no government to issue deeds. So land should be distributed on first come basis. Is this fair or not ? Who do you think should entitle somebody to land in absence of a government? But I do understand that all humans on this planet are competing for limited resources. A culture that is more aggressive and has superior technology will always prevail in such a conflict. It is the way of the world. And it is still not up to you to decide what "good" means. Some people would think it good to live as hunter/gatherers. You have no right to deny them this opinion or lifestyle. As you don't want people denying you the freedom to not fucking buckle up. What is "good" always depends on your point of view. Try to look through someone else's eyes every once in while. QuoteStay away from the left-wing hate sites. We do not "invade" countries unless the objective is to stop bad people from hurting others. After fixing the problem we seek to pull back and return home, not take over. This is probably your funniest remark. I will just chronologically list a few armed conflicts that the US was involved in: Korea - North Korea:Now a Model Democracy Cuba - No more commies in the Caribbean. Vietnam - We all know what happened ! Panama - Count this as a win. Even though Noriega was a democratically elected president. 1st. Golf war: Saddam was brought to fall, no wait, what !? Yugoslavia/Kosovo: Clinton did some good in the world. 2nd Golf war/Afghanistan: We will wait and watch CNN. Thats 2 out of 7 problems solved. Not bad. QuoteI understand why you say this, but it wasn't a cheap shot at all. You are articulating very well the secular humanist mind set, one which accepts without question a government which micro-manages its people and punishes them for refusing to comply. Many years ago I heard someone sum up the German attitude toward government authority thus: (Paraphrase) "If an elected leader in Germany imposed a 60mph speed limit on the autobahn, the German people would hate it but they would obey the law until the next election when they would vote out the people who imposed the law." Thanks and you've got it pretty much right with Germany. And I don't think that is to bad, is it ? Would you advocate armed revolution over safety belts and safer sex ? QuoteGod decides. The basic moral truth to which you referred in your Old Testament example has to do with respecting parents. My comments have to do with the role religion has played in America. We were founded as a Christian nation based upon Biblical principles. This provided a strong foundation of liberty & freedom. This foundation is being eroded due to the growing influence of secular humanism & its concomitant hostility to any suggestion of God. See above, you where not founded a Christian nation. And the freedom of religion still exists. It just has no place in any governmental processes as stated in the constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." God does not decide anything, man decides, sometimes based on the interpretation of a text that is 2000 years old and can be interpreted in infinite ways. When was the last time God came down to earth and signed a proposal ? How do you know what God wants ? the Bible? . See above to why this has no credibility ! QuoteI have no use for Islam or any other false religion. Can anyone demonstrate how Islam or its followers have made the world a better place? Look at the way people live in Arab countries. What technology have they produced, what improvement in living standards during the past dozen or so centuries can be attributed to followers of Allah? It's still no up to you to define a good place! And there were about 1000 years where Christianity made earth a pretty miserable place in most people's perception. Arabs invented the decimal system you use every single day. Not to mention great contributions to astronomy and mathematics. QuoteNobody is trying to deny knowledge. The issue is the way the information is presented. It is important to teach this stuff within a context of basic moral standards consistent with our Chrisitan-based culture. Young people who understand the ramifications of sexuality (including God's moral standards) are less likely to have to deal with stds, pregnancy, etc. But there are greater issues having to do with such things as self-respect. One reason we have statutory rape laws is that young people, particularly girls, have not developed the maturity to understand the ramifications of their behavior. If a woman likes a guy when she's 20 she'll probably like the same guy when she's 50. But a girl who likes a guy when she's 15 can look back on it just a few years later and say "Why'd I ever want to do that with him?" How does society benefit by having millions of young women growing into adulthood carrying the burden of a cheap sexual history on their resumes? We almost agree on this aside from "Christian" values Bullshit. The US is the 1st World country with largest practicing Christian population: Yet the US by far has the highest divorce rate. The divorce rate is proportional to the Christian population by state. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf So much for biblical values. It is very unlikely that a girl will like the same guy her whole life. Because this is clearly not happening. QuoteHere we go again with the terminology. How is encouraging young people to respect basic moral standards "imposing?" Any young woman who looks back on her life and regrets being pure & honorable can always change her mind and become a whore. But the woman who regrets the complications that come with being a slut cannot go back and get a do-over. It is up every girl for herself to decide to be a slut. I have many friends who prefer an "experienced" woman because they know what they are doing and not boring in bed. I prefer a certain level of experience myself. QuoteHuh? What's wrong with this? If a 14 year-old wants me to teach her what it means to be a woman, why not? You are rejecting the very authority that allows you to claim this kind of thing would be wrong in the first place. Ha ! You pulled a Thomas Jefferson on me. Cleverly omitting my argument concerning age even though we agree ? I will repost it here for your convenience. QuoteI am against that for the sole reason that young people are to impressionable and can easily be taken advantage of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites steve1 5 #83 March 19, 2010 I have to agree with you in terms of alcohol being deemed better than marijuanna. With all the terrible things that come from alcohol use, I have to wonder why is it legal and marijuanna not. I disagree though, when you say there are absolutely no ill affects from marijuanna use. Brain scans have proven it can have a very definite affect on a person's cognitive abilities..... I haven't read all the posts on this one, so maybe this has already been discussed. I work with all kinds of kids who smoke a large amount of marijuanna. Many of them are doing poorly in school and don't give a rip about much of anything. But at the same time, maybe this use is helping them cope with a crazy home and crazy world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 Next Page 4 of 4 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
mnealtx 0 #81 March 18, 2010 QuoteQuoteJesus, how hard must it be to deal with simple helpful tools, such as - Quote - Quote - it's really pesky to read posts which do not show who is replying to whom at which post ...... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sorry. Still mostly computer illiterate. I admire the people who make this look easy. Cheers, Jon QuoteYou speak I reply You speak Just change <> out for [] - I put the <> stuff inside the [] stuff so you can see how it works. You can nest it as deep as needed, although it gets confusing after more than 2 or 3 replies. Hope that helps.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ibx 2 #82 March 18, 2010 QuoteAre you defining a free country as one without any laws at all? Of course we've always had some basic laws designed to enforce basic standards, such as laws against stealing. My point is that every year we are faced with a new list of things we were once free to do but which are now illegal. This is the direct result of a secular humanist mind set, one which believes we can remove all crimes, accidents, and tragedies from the human experience if we just pass enough laws and tightly regulate people's behavior. Thus it has become a crime to allow smoking in a restaurant because liberal Democrats want to prove how much they "care" about your health. The alternative would be to prove how much they care about liberty & freedom, respect private property rights, and treat you as an adult capable of deciding whether you want to do business with the restaurant. ...where would you draw the line ?... Well a completely free would imply having no laws. I am however completely aware that is impossible. I would draw the line on public space. Especially when safety is involved. The seat belt example is perfect for this. If you are driving a car, you are traveling on public space, at this point the government has a responsibility to protect you, since you are a citizen and valuable commodity. There is no gain in you getting injured or killed. The same argument can be made for anti smoking laws in work places(What the laws are actually about.) I guess this could be an endless debate because there are endless rules and regulations which could be passed. I would advocate common sense, and since you said it yourself: Buckling up is common sense. QuoteIf you had some basic knowledge of our nation's Founders & the Biblical principles which motivated them you would not need to ask this. This stuff used to be taught in our schools. Everyone understood them regardless of their personal religious attitudes. In recent years the schools (tightly controlled by the left) have not been teaching these principles, thus creating a historically ignorant population that has been conditioned to accept secular humanism as society's "norm" and is more willing to accept increasing erosion of freedom in the name of "helping" people. I don't know why you religious people are constantly saying America was founded on Biblical principles. One of the most striking examples would be the 1st. amendment, stating freedom of religion, which directly contradicts at least two of the ten commandments. If of all things in the bible, do you not think that the 10 commandments in their entirety, would have been used as basis for the constitution? Speaking of historical ignorance: The best recent example is the Texas school board trying to exclude Thomas Jefferson from history lessons because of his opinion on the separation of church and state. Someone is living in denial. You are still speaking of some basic principles that you think are universal. As I have stated before basic moral principles change over time. And are vastly different in other cultures. As the world grows together these cultures will clash. The world view I am advocating is just the approach to a society that is based on irrefutable scientific fact and common sense. Not laws and morals which are thousands of years old and written by bronze age nomads which stand without being questioned. You believe that this is the word of God, as the Jews believe in the Talmud and the Muslims in Quo-ran. Any of these scriptures are equally valid in the eyes of their followers. Now the problem with this is that people are killing each other every day over which scripture has it correct. What is even more bizarre, is the fact that people are to this day killing each other over the interpretation of the one and the same scripture(Bible: Northern Ireland,Quo-Ran:Sunni vs. Shiite, The Jews are fighting over settling politics in the occupied territories). This shows just how clear Gods word is stated. Now using common sense, do you honestly think that one of these texts, over which there is no universal consensus, is a good basis for a country ? I would much rather prefer a constitution that may borrow a few ideas from these texts, but is not based on one. The founding fathers knew this and acted accordingly. QuoteAs an arbirtary benchmark, I say we repeal all laws that have been imposed during the last 40 years. That way it would still be illegal to hurt people or take their stuff, but cops would not be harassing us for sleeping in our cars or for not wearing seat belts or smoking in a bar. That would be indeed interesting. You realize however that the world has changed ? If we stay with the seatbelt example, traffic has increased at least 20 fold in the past 40 years. Check out: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx It only goes back to 1994, but the trend is obvious. Decreasing death rate with more licensed drivers. Now do you not think, different rules should apply ? Of course I am aware that its not only the seat belts, it's the much safer cars manufactures have to build, to comply with more arbitrary left wing rules. Speed Limits and public awareness and so on. Now would you like to see an increase in traffic fatalities so that you have freedom to not buckle up ? Now exactly how many lives are worth your freedom, to not fucking buckle up? Similar Arguments can made for any new Law restricting something. Some are more valid than others. QuoteDamn, here we go again. What does being licensed have to do with it? I wore an AAD on most of my student freefalls. When I was a few jumps away from graduating I bought a used rig and completed my training without one. The DZO simply reminded me that if I had a problem I would have to pull the reserve myself (something I had already done on my 14th jump.) I had over 100 jumps before I bothered to get my "A" license. Use of an AAD should be no different than use of a helmet, audible altimeter, or booties: completely up to the discretion of the individual. An AAD can be helpful in certain situations. It can also be harmful. Misfires are rare but can happen. I don't want my reserve firing as I'm climbing out to float, nor do I want the added expense & maintenance hassle that AAD's bring into our lives. It is the height of arrogant hypocrisy for a DZO to require AAD's for "safety" reasons, yet allow people to jump tiny fast mains that can kill you if you misjudge a landing approach. Since the AAD issue has been discussed at length by people who are much more competent than me. I will just give my opinion as a soon to be static line Instructor: This is about responsibility again. When a first jump student shows up at DZ he mostly knows virtually nothing about skydiving. This includes the involved risks. Any student knows he can bounce, he has not however been confronted with the possibility of for example a brain lock. I have seen a student, on a perfect canopy with a few line twists(common on static line jumps and trained for thoroughly), not react at all. He flew arms up, downwind into a clearing and broke his ankle. He did not react to radio. After he was found he reacted normally and said he had not been unconscious. He said he had just freaked. It was his second jump after an uneventful first. Brainlock of the century. Students are the most vulnerable skydivers out there. So as long as AAD's save lives, I am for them for students ! After acquiring an A License you should know enough about skydiving to decide for yourself. If any credible number shows up, stating AAD's cost more lives than they save, or are even completely worthless, I would be the first to abandon them. QuoteAhh, left wing history revision. This crap is being taught in our schools, too. We err when we assign current societal standards to past historical events. This land did not "belong" to the Indians. They just happened to have arrived here prior to the European settlers. Shit happens and there were some unfortunate events, but there was also plenty of blame to go around. The Indians were a violent primitive people who were killing each other long before the white man waded ashore. At the time this was just a land mass, not an established country with borders & official immigration policies. Anyone had the right to come here and make a life. The civilizing influence of European culture, based on Judeo-Christian principles, produced far more good than bad. Your logic is completely flawed. What would entitle you to a property ? A deed ? When the Indians where around there was no government to issue deeds. So land should be distributed on first come basis. Is this fair or not ? Who do you think should entitle somebody to land in absence of a government? But I do understand that all humans on this planet are competing for limited resources. A culture that is more aggressive and has superior technology will always prevail in such a conflict. It is the way of the world. And it is still not up to you to decide what "good" means. Some people would think it good to live as hunter/gatherers. You have no right to deny them this opinion or lifestyle. As you don't want people denying you the freedom to not fucking buckle up. What is "good" always depends on your point of view. Try to look through someone else's eyes every once in while. QuoteStay away from the left-wing hate sites. We do not "invade" countries unless the objective is to stop bad people from hurting others. After fixing the problem we seek to pull back and return home, not take over. This is probably your funniest remark. I will just chronologically list a few armed conflicts that the US was involved in: Korea - North Korea:Now a Model Democracy Cuba - No more commies in the Caribbean. Vietnam - We all know what happened ! Panama - Count this as a win. Even though Noriega was a democratically elected president. 1st. Golf war: Saddam was brought to fall, no wait, what !? Yugoslavia/Kosovo: Clinton did some good in the world. 2nd Golf war/Afghanistan: We will wait and watch CNN. Thats 2 out of 7 problems solved. Not bad. QuoteI understand why you say this, but it wasn't a cheap shot at all. You are articulating very well the secular humanist mind set, one which accepts without question a government which micro-manages its people and punishes them for refusing to comply. Many years ago I heard someone sum up the German attitude toward government authority thus: (Paraphrase) "If an elected leader in Germany imposed a 60mph speed limit on the autobahn, the German people would hate it but they would obey the law until the next election when they would vote out the people who imposed the law." Thanks and you've got it pretty much right with Germany. And I don't think that is to bad, is it ? Would you advocate armed revolution over safety belts and safer sex ? QuoteGod decides. The basic moral truth to which you referred in your Old Testament example has to do with respecting parents. My comments have to do with the role religion has played in America. We were founded as a Christian nation based upon Biblical principles. This provided a strong foundation of liberty & freedom. This foundation is being eroded due to the growing influence of secular humanism & its concomitant hostility to any suggestion of God. See above, you where not founded a Christian nation. And the freedom of religion still exists. It just has no place in any governmental processes as stated in the constitution: "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." God does not decide anything, man decides, sometimes based on the interpretation of a text that is 2000 years old and can be interpreted in infinite ways. When was the last time God came down to earth and signed a proposal ? How do you know what God wants ? the Bible? . See above to why this has no credibility ! QuoteI have no use for Islam or any other false religion. Can anyone demonstrate how Islam or its followers have made the world a better place? Look at the way people live in Arab countries. What technology have they produced, what improvement in living standards during the past dozen or so centuries can be attributed to followers of Allah? It's still no up to you to define a good place! And there were about 1000 years where Christianity made earth a pretty miserable place in most people's perception. Arabs invented the decimal system you use every single day. Not to mention great contributions to astronomy and mathematics. QuoteNobody is trying to deny knowledge. The issue is the way the information is presented. It is important to teach this stuff within a context of basic moral standards consistent with our Chrisitan-based culture. Young people who understand the ramifications of sexuality (including God's moral standards) are less likely to have to deal with stds, pregnancy, etc. But there are greater issues having to do with such things as self-respect. One reason we have statutory rape laws is that young people, particularly girls, have not developed the maturity to understand the ramifications of their behavior. If a woman likes a guy when she's 20 she'll probably like the same guy when she's 50. But a girl who likes a guy when she's 15 can look back on it just a few years later and say "Why'd I ever want to do that with him?" How does society benefit by having millions of young women growing into adulthood carrying the burden of a cheap sexual history on their resumes? We almost agree on this aside from "Christian" values Bullshit. The US is the 1st World country with largest practicing Christian population: Yet the US by far has the highest divorce rate. The divorce rate is proportional to the Christian population by state. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/mar%26div.pdf So much for biblical values. It is very unlikely that a girl will like the same guy her whole life. Because this is clearly not happening. QuoteHere we go again with the terminology. How is encouraging young people to respect basic moral standards "imposing?" Any young woman who looks back on her life and regrets being pure & honorable can always change her mind and become a whore. But the woman who regrets the complications that come with being a slut cannot go back and get a do-over. It is up every girl for herself to decide to be a slut. I have many friends who prefer an "experienced" woman because they know what they are doing and not boring in bed. I prefer a certain level of experience myself. QuoteHuh? What's wrong with this? If a 14 year-old wants me to teach her what it means to be a woman, why not? You are rejecting the very authority that allows you to claim this kind of thing would be wrong in the first place. Ha ! You pulled a Thomas Jefferson on me. Cleverly omitting my argument concerning age even though we agree ? I will repost it here for your convenience. QuoteI am against that for the sole reason that young people are to impressionable and can easily be taken advantage of. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve1 5 #83 March 19, 2010 I have to agree with you in terms of alcohol being deemed better than marijuanna. With all the terrible things that come from alcohol use, I have to wonder why is it legal and marijuanna not. I disagree though, when you say there are absolutely no ill affects from marijuanna use. Brain scans have proven it can have a very definite affect on a person's cognitive abilities..... I haven't read all the posts on this one, so maybe this has already been discussed. I work with all kinds of kids who smoke a large amount of marijuanna. Many of them are doing poorly in school and don't give a rip about much of anything. But at the same time, maybe this use is helping them cope with a crazy home and crazy world... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
