Hot Topics, v. 2007.6

1

The Raven of the Hawk(Traggle)

in July 12th, 2007 @ 08:48

Can we please not go into a religious debate, like every hot topics thread seems to do?

0

0

2

Vendaval 100%Organic

in July 12th, 2007 @ 09:50

I’d like to know how Donaldio views other religions with such strong feelings about his own, but the religion debate is hopefully over. Why can’t we all just be very good, and hope that helps?

0

3

Piggy

in July 12th, 2007 @ 10:10

Then what should we discuss?

0

4

Shadowkat

in July 12th, 2007 @ 10:12

1-Yeah, that would be nice. I still think the Presidential Debates should be discussed. Like the fact that, even though Ron Paul is taking the lead (as has been doing so) in the Republican polls, he’s not being covered by the media.

2-I thought about that (the being good, I mean)…I figure, if there is a Heaven and a Hell, and such, then my only real sin so far is not believing in it. If there isn’t, then I have no reason to worry, really. Besides, if a genuinely good person can’t get into Heaven just because they didn’t believe in it, that’s not fair, anyway…lol.

0

5

the man for aeiou

in July 12th, 2007 @ 10:29

4- are you athiast? because I like to think that people get into heven based on how the lived there lives by the rules of there faith. no faith,no rules,straight to heven!

0

6

Shadowkat

in July 12th, 2007 @ 10:42

5-Well, yes, I am an atheist/agnostic, but I don’t think that just any atheist can get into Heaven. I think that you have to be a genuinely good person (meaning you haven’t committed any real sins, or, if you have, are sincerely sorry for them) in order to be accepted there. Otherwise it would kind of defeat the purpose of separating Heaven from Hell. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying, though. And, look, we’re on religion, again…oy.

0

7

jammin j

in July 12th, 2007 @ 10:44

4-thats an interesting idea. but you’re basing your assumptions on good works get you into heaven.
5-isn’t that like saying you get to heaven by faith in your own faith? but if thats your faith, then you have faith in faith in faith……oh whatever.

0

8

jammin j

in July 12th, 2007 @ 10:46

oh, woops. we’re on religion again. how ’bout we discuss the issues on nuclear disarmament. i read to much tom clancy.

0

9

Shadowkat

in July 12th, 2007 @ 10:53

7-See post #6.

0

10

jammin j

in July 12th, 2007 @ 11:12

9-i thought we didn’t want to get into religion again? btw, i love your name. its sick. as in cool.

0

11

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 12th, 2007 @ 11:15

8- You have a point. Why shouldn’t Iran have nuclear reactors (that are usually used for electricity and such) when the US has tons, and uses them to create nuclear weapons? Is this another example of the US being the bully on the global playground?

0

12

jammin j

in July 12th, 2007 @ 11:34

11-yep. but the problem is that america has the power to be the bully. it would be a lot better if noone had nuclear weapons. but then whoever secretely made even a couple would have complete power. so we all need nuclear power and warheads to enforce the MAD tactic.

0

13

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 12th, 2007 @ 11:46

12- Yes, but (playing the Devil’s Advocate, here,) isn’t that infringement upon the nations’ rights? Shouldn’t global domination be a survival of the fittest thing?

(back to normal, thank whatever diety you believe in and I don’t.) For one thing, I don’t think we should have nations. And that Europe and the US need to get their butts out of Africa! Yeez, everything was going fine and then imperiolism moved to that continent… *mumbles darkly*

0

14

agagabagabag

in July 12th, 2007 @ 12:47

1- Sorry.

0

15

agagabagabag

in July 12th, 2007 @ 13:21

I don’t believe in heaven, so l won’t go there.

0

16

Pyro

in July 12th, 2007 @ 13:46

It just makes me want to defect to Switzerland or something when our government starts talking about the huge terrorist threat to us and how if we pull out of Iraq, the insurgents will “follow us home” which is total *expletive*. We’re just paranoid because we are the big kid on the block right now and we’re worried someone’s going to come after us, so we’re making enemies by trying to “protect” ourselves.

Basically, our foreign policy is total garbage right now.

I would love to hear your opinions.

0

17

the man for aeiou

in July 12th, 2007 @ 13:47

15-If you are good anothe and there is a heven I belive you can get to heven even if you don’t belive in it.
7- faith in your faith is pointless. you need to follow the rules of your faith to get to heven.

you know irans prident said that he will get isrel off the map? I think that he might blow them of the map, you knowwhat i mean?

0

18

jammin j

in July 12th, 2007 @ 14:05

17- actually, thats prophesied in the bible. somewhere in Isaiah it says “Isreals enemies from the north”……and so on and so forth. i’ll go look it up.

0

19

jammin j

in July 12th, 2007 @ 14:27

oh well, i couldn’t find it.

0

20

Jadestone

in July 12th, 2007 @ 14:30

I agree with what’s been said, that the US is basically… oh, darn, I know this word… umm… grr. Blaming someone else for something we’re doing to.

Ironic, contradictory, paradoxical, no…

0

21

Elizabeth

in July 12th, 2007 @ 14:44

I had a coment on the religion discussion, but I’m not going to bother

nuclear dissarmment (I think i spelled that wrong) yes, the US is being stupid and hipocritical about it, but it’s not a big change from other things. I have a t-shirt that says “Weapons of Mass destruction, we found them!” and it has a map of the US with the biggest “WMD sites”in America, it’s pretty funny, well, more serious and a good point than funny but still, I like it

What about the way the gov’t is seriously dragging it’s feet on developing a plan and all for renewable energy? It really wouldn’t be that hard just to cut down on gas cunsumption like, make all cities have taxi cabs that are hybrids, and/or all governmental vehicles, you see them everywhere, police cars, people that help farmers for the gov’t… I’m sure there’s more.
They could also give more subsidies for windmills and solar panels. Did you know tht the government gives so many subsidies to oil companies that renewable energy is actually cheeper. If the government didn’t give any energy subsidies, using wind, hydro and solar power would be much cheaper for everyone. The government acts as if they want us to us as much unrenewable fuel as we can (well they are the ones that own the oil companies, so i guess that makes sence)

ok, the post is long enough…

0

22

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 12th, 2007 @ 15:02

Let’s hear the other side of the story about israel. The plot of land we now call israel used to belong to some coutries in the middle east. The US and England practically gave israel to jews. This wasn’t because of the Holocaust. Israel is a kind of lap dog to the US and England, or a foot into the doorway of miidle eastern politics. Israel is bombing Pakistan and Iran, they’re defending themselves, horrors are done on both sides. Yes, some Middle Eastern countries are being stupid right now and saying that the holocaust didn’t happen, but they’llcome around. You have to understand it’s like if China became the most powerful country in the world, started a genecide of the Mongolians, and then Japan and Korea beat down China and take their place at the head of the pack. Then they say to the United States, “Oh, by the way, Texas is now called Mongria, we gave it to the Mongolians and it is its own country now.”
I have nothing against Jews, but I have a major problem with Israel. I also have a problem with all the other countries in the world, some more than others, but I’ll not take all day.

0

23

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 12th, 2007 @ 15:18

Israel bombing Pakistan and Iran? I don’t think it’s ever done that.

0

24

agagabagabag

in July 12th, 2007 @ 15:22

22- Exactly. l’m not anti-semite, l’m anti lsrael.

0

25

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 12th, 2007 @ 15:28

What does it mean in practical terms to be anti-Israel?

0

26

Ê‘yviva

in July 12th, 2007 @ 15:32

22- brief history lesson:
the original UN reolution only designated around half of the current state of isreal as israel. and most of the land was desert. the jews took it as it was better than nothing. right after it was declared various arab nations attacked.

also, it was a brittish mandate. right before. attack brittain.

americans keep hearing about the threat of terror, but terror in the US is an infrequent threat at most. in israel, it is a very real threat.

“they’ll come around”????? the longer since an event the easier it is to deny it.

also, your analogy is by no means accurate. mongolians have no connection to texas. jews have a very strong connection to israel, being as it used to be their country. (yes, that was only really true centeries ago. but its still true. the mongolians have zero connectin to texas)

i am not saying israel is perfect, nor that i agree with every descision it makes. but please be less general in your critisizisms.

0

27

dark duke of darkness

in July 12th, 2007 @ 16:10

24-i actually agree with you. you have to realize though, jews have been opressed for thousands of years everywhere. they kind of deserve a break, y’know? but they need to be in isreal, cause thats what the bible says… bliddy bible!
26-maybe a better example would be if someone made america give bast the entire western united states to the native Americans?
20-hypocritical?
16-yea. why is switzerland so great? go to Denmark! although we ave a crap government right now…
13-wow. i totally agree.countries are just bad. a strong central, democratic socialistic world government would solve sooooo many problems.
about heaven, it doesnt exist. neither does hell.

0

28

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 12th, 2007 @ 16:35

23- “Israel bombs tunnel in Gaza

Israeli forces bombed a tunnel near the Gaza Stripâ€™s Karni crossing on Tuesday which they believed Palestinian militants planned to use to carry out attacks inside Israel, an army spokesman said. The airstrike came a day after a Palestinian suicide bomber killed three people in the Israeli Red Sea resort of Eilat, apparently after first slipping from Gaza into the Egyptian Sinai. â€œThere was an aerial attack on a tunnel near the Karni crossing, which was going to be used for attacks against Israeli citizens in the immediate future,â€ the army spokesman said.”

I found that in one of the middle eastern newspapers after about thirty seconds on Google.

” “they’ll come around”????? the longer since an event the easier it is to deny it. ” This sounds taclky, but the older generations willdie off soon. Our generation is slightly more informed, I would hope.

” 26-maybe a better example would be if someone made america give bast the entire western united states to the native Americans? ” That’s not accurate either. Three religions were fighting for israel, the Jews, the Christians, and the Muslims for religous reasons. It’s really a completely unique situation.

“go to Denmark! although we ave a crap government right nowâ€¦” Our queen’s all right. The non-royal lot needs to be changed out quickly.

0

29

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 12th, 2007 @ 16:37

To tell the truth, I am an anarchist, or maybe socialist. Either we should live in tribes with elected leaders (not governments) or we should have a strong central global government.

0

30

agagabagabag

in July 12th, 2007 @ 16:39

22- Their country was in the Sinia penninsula,, currently part of egypt.

0

31

Robert Coontz (Administrator)Wh

in July 12th, 2007 @ 16:49

(28, 23, 22) You said that Israel was bombing Pakistan and Iran. The news report you quote is about Gaza. Maybe I should post a map.

(30) Whose country was in the Sinai?

I sense that the Q&A guy is going to get very frustrated on this thread…

0

32

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 12th, 2007 @ 16:57

A quote from Wiki- “Gaza (Arabic: ØºØ²Ø© transliteration: Ä azzah; Hebrew: ×¢×–×” Azzah) is the largest city within the Gaza Strip and within the Palestinian territories.”

Whoops, I meant Lebanon, not Iran. Sorry!

0

33

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 12th, 2007 @ 17:06

31- Who is getting frustrated? Robert? Nooooooo. Can’t be? Really?

*Digs hole and hides in fear.*

0

34

Kagcomix

in July 12th, 2007 @ 17:29

nods and smiles and rocks back and forth because all this war stuff is completely beyond her. honestly i think i’m stupider than i was before……i don’t know if there is a heaven or a hell. i hope there is otherwise why are we here? death scares me beyond belief. i’ve had it alot on my mind lately as well as this huge feeling that we’re all going to die. i think about armagedon a lot also. it scares me to no end the sun blowing up.

0

35

Ê‘yviva

in July 12th, 2007 @ 17:35

28- it is this old generation that is the first hand witnesses. its much easier to deny something that someone said versus what someone saw. and our generation isn’t nescarilly better informed. poor schooling/racist schooling can destroy any hope.

31- Join the club!

0

36

Sweet Melpomene

in July 12th, 2007 @ 18:51

15- *smothers you in hugs* I agree with the whole effect of what you’re saying. If you don’t believe in a mythological place, you can’t get there.

18- Isn’t it guaranteed that a nation, will, at one time, have enemies attacking them from the north? Unless said nation is located at the north pole, of course. I don’t buy any of this “prophecy” junk. Same goes for Nostradamus. Give me something specific, that was pointed out beforehand, and I’ll consider taking it as foresight. However, something vague and open to so many different interpretations is simply unacceptable.

22/24- I nearly agree.

32- Hmm, Lebanon. I have a friend from there, who, apparently was some in some sort of children army. Or so he says. He’s not the most reliable person.

0

37

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 12th, 2007 @ 20:15

YAY!! NEW THREAD!!! YIPPEE!
1-I completely agree. Anyone who mentions religion should be banned from the thread. Oh, and sorry, because I am one of the leading reasons for that.
4-Sorry, but I don’t wanna talk about the presidential candidates. I don’t have an opinion on that subject, so I wouldn’t say anything, just lurk. Also,*calls time out from religion ban* it isn’t about believing in Heaven and Hell-it is about believing that Jesus died and rose again to save our sins. Even if you don’t believe in Christianity, God forgives your sins. But until you believe that Jesus saved us from sin, then, as far as Christians believe, you won’t go to Heaven. I know it sounds strict, but that was a rhetorical statement, so don’t start arguing with it.*calls time- in*

Did anyone read my last post on the other thread where I said I heard on the radio that we aren’t really fighting a war? It is just the US and most of the world against a small gang of evil people trying to get in the way of their own country’s progress.
If you did, raise your hand. Also, they said that the media is purposely making it seem like the war in Iraq is bad. They never show any of the good that we have done. That is why Bush’s approval rating has dropped-the media.
15-Not true. See the first part of this post.
20-You mean hypocritical.
27-They don’t have to be. But they believe they should. My cousins are Jews and so was one of my teachers, but they live in California. Also, you are from Denmark? I think Vixen is too. Are you, Vixen?
31-NO WAY!!! Robert is getting frustrated???? He doesn’t even get frustrated when I start using multiple ! and ALL CAPS when I get angry. That is so weird!! I agree-post a map. All these Middle East names swirl around my head, but I always forget what country they are in.
34-Some of the stuff I know how you feel about the war stuff. Also, Christians don’t have to be scared of death, because they know they go to a better place(Heaven) when they die, and live with God forever.

On nuclear power-I believe that we should use it. It is a wonderful source of energy. I think the reason that the US doesn’t want any other countries, like Iraq and Iran, to have nuclear weapons is because they are unstable, and could easily be taken over by terrorists who could bomb us. Until they become more stable, they probably shouldn’t have access to nuclear energy. We, on the other hand, have seen the horrors of nuclear bombs(WW2, anyone?) and are a stable country with a small chance of being ruled by terrorists(I know some smart aleck is going to say Bush and Cheney are pretty close, seeing what they are doing in the war, but they are doing their best, OK?), so we can have it, because I believe that the government, unless there is no other choice, will NOT use a nuclear bomb.
—————————————————————
Wow, that was longer than I thought.

0

38

dark duke of darkness

in July 12th, 2007 @ 21:06

28-the queen doesnt really count…. all she does is make a new years speech.
36-if he says he is, i doubt it. (the lebanonian kid.) not exactly the kind of thing one would wnat to talk about…

0

39

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 12th, 2007 @ 21:21

I’m not frustrated yet. I just strongly suspect that I will become frustrated if MBers talk about Middle East politics without knowing the difference between Lebanon, Iran, Pakistan, and Gaza. Maybe some geography buff on the blog will remind you so I don’t have to.

(38, 28) Oh, by the way, a boy from Lebanon isn’t Lebanonian. He’s Lebanese.

0

40

the man for aeiou

in July 12th, 2007 @ 21:32

37- *calls time-out* no, faith in jesus is not a straght flight to heven! goodness and being faithful to your belives is! it’s people like you who are killing the librel church. *calls time in*

22-here is what you have to undersand: isrel was free thosands of years ago. then the babaloninas took over. then the persuns took over. then the greeks. then the romans. then the muslims. then the cristenns. then the muslims again. then the turcks. then the turckis empire fell to the u.k. the u.k. conolised it in till the end of world war 2. at the end the un took over. they then gave isrel back to the jews. the reson the muslims attack it is because some belive that it was unfairly taken.

0

41

Ê‘yviva

in July 12th, 2007 @ 23:01

39- oh the wonders of geography! and knowing the proper names for people.

40- heaven is a belief that many religions have, and each has different requirements for admittance and descriptions once you get there them differently. even within the same religion (say, christianity) the requirements and discription are different. therefore, arguening is pointless. case closed.

0

42

agagabagabag

in July 12th, 2007 @ 23:20

40- Hmm… *Consults cartoon history of the universe, part 1, volume4 (Part of the Old Testament), google maps, and wikipedia*
Okay. Here’s how It shoud be.
Sinai was uninhabited for the most part. Then the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Hyksos, the Hittites, and the Caanatites fought over it until the Caananites won. Then the Israelites took it over and made it Israel. Then Egypt took it back. Then Israelites were taken prisoners, but they fled. When they came back, they went to a Whole new place and battled off the Philistines, whose land it was. Then Assyria conquered everyone. The lsraelites allied with the Egyptians, and they took back their lands. Then Babylonians took over, sending every Israelite to Babylon, way north. Yahweh is said to have promised them Caanan, but they ended up in Babylon. Then Persia took over Babylonia, jews and all, but they were allowed to return to Israel, part of the Empire. When Alexander the Great conquered it, it was his, but his reign soon fell. Then the Romans Conquered it. Then the Muslims, then the turks.
When the Turkish empire fell, the U.N gave lsrael some land that included the second kingdom the had made, but quite a bit of it was not.
36- Um, ookayyyy… *hugs* someone who agrees!

0

43

agagabagabag

in July 12th, 2007 @ 23:32

39- Well, l’m a geography/history nerd (among other kinds), if it helps. l’d correct the errors for you, but l’d seem know- it- all- ish.

0

44

Penty the Pantsless Communist

in July 13th, 2007 @ 00:10

12 (jammin j)- No, Iran is to the east of Israel. Lebanon is to the north.

39 (OEAD)- That would be me.

C’mon, loves, if you can’t keep the various countries of the Middle East straight, go look on Google for more info.

0

45

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 13th, 2007 @ 03:40

I have the solution to all the problems in the Middle East! We Muse Bloggers take over the world. Then we tell everyone in the middle east to stop fighting. When they do, we erase all the borders. If they don’t stop fighting, we move everyone in the middle east into antartica until they stop fighting.

*laughs manically at thispreposterous idea*

0

46

In dire need of a better name.(Jugglebug)

in July 13th, 2007 @ 10:44

45. Not preposterous. GENIUS. i think you’ve found the cure to all international agreements. Give them a time out!

0

47

the man for aeiou

in July 13th, 2007 @ 11:49

41-good!
42-no. israel is the name of jacob,father of jhosoph(who had that cout), got after he wesltled the angel.he was promised the land that arbem had will be made his deceneds country. they never called sinai “israel”. they were the tribes of israel,but israel was the “promised land” or “the land of milk and honey”. this was the real israel but god made the hebrews stay in siaai for 40 years because of the golden calf.joshoway foght the battle jerico to get israel back form the people that god put there to punish the hebrews.

0

48

jammin j

in July 13th, 2007 @ 12:06

44-huh?
28-did that happen to be the Erez Crossing? ’cause her i am on google earth and lo and behold i can see a highway and what looks like a tunnel. could that possiblybe it? and that just so happens to be in isreal
46-i agree! and yes you do indeed need a better name.
i just changed the picture of my user to be an atomic bomb mushroom cloud colored blue. it looks sweet. i need to find out more about the ambio study. and then get you all to read it.

0

49

Alice

in July 13th, 2007 @ 12:07

46- “You can sit in Antarctica till you’re ready to be nice to each other. When you’ve thought about it, you have to apologize. Then you can go home.”

But it’s not only the Middle East. We’d have to do that with just about everyone.

0

50

jammin j

in July 13th, 2007 @ 12:36

okay, here is somethng i found on wikipedia:

“A study presented at the annual meeting of the american geophysical union in december 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of world war ii and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. in a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (ca. 15 kilotons each)”….thats small according to our standards…”on major populated centers, the researchers estimated fatalities from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per country. also, as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of north america and eurasia, including most of the grain growing regions. the cooling would last for years and could be “”catastrophic”” according to the researchers”—end

sice i don’t know the copy and paste controls on a mac, i typed all that up. oh, notice that that is only a “regional” nuclear war. and also that they weigh the bombs in “kilotons” instead of the more realistic “megatons”. i once read a study that estimated prolonged effects of one 20 megaton nuclear bomb blast would have on a city. it was gruesome. 40 mile blast radius. 500 mile and hour winds. if you looked at the blast twenty miles away, your eyes would melt. 40 miles away and you’d be permanently blinded. and the survivors would have gravely serious burns which is the most excruciatingly painful injury and also the longest lasting. it usually takes 5 months or more to recover. and the sheer number of victims would be astounding. the rotting corpses would be a breeding ground for rats, diseases and a stench that could be smelled for miles. evacuation would be out of the question. recovering physically, economically, agriculturally, and most of all mentally would be a lost cause. and that is just one city. imagine armageddon. all those movies you see about the “survivors” is purely fiction. now do you see my mindset. i would do anything to stop nuclear war.

0

51

agagabagabag

in July 13th, 2007 @ 12:39

47- Actually, Jericho was just a place they wanted. It never belonged to them. If you look towards the bible for this info, you don’t always get the truth.

0

52

Ê‘yviva

in July 13th, 2007 @ 15:03

51- i sence a religious argument in the winds. go no further.

50- i think everyone agrees nuclear warfare is harrible….. has any one seen wargames?

0

53

Sweet Melpomene

in July 13th, 2007 @ 15:59

38- Kinda what I was thinking, especially because he was somewhat convinced he was the descendant of a Templar… I don’t know why they let him into the US Army; I don’t exactly trust him.

42- Indeed!

52- Was that the movie with the kid who accidentally got into government computers or something?

0

54

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 13th, 2007 @ 16:48

(53) Many Lebanese and Syrians are descended partly from European Crusaders. You see a lot of blue eyes and fair hair in that part of the Arab world.

0

55

agagabagabag

in July 13th, 2007 @ 16:55

52- l fail to see what’s wrong with religious arguments. Some of us love to argue, and it’s really annoying when people who aren’t involved in the arguments butt in and tell us to stop. But l have seen War Games.

0

56

Axa

in July 13th, 2007 @ 18:30

55- Because they’re arguments, not discussions. Everyone keeps forgetting this isn’t a thread for that! HOW MANY TIMES WILL I HAVE TO SAY THIS.

Example of discussion:
1: I don’t understand the rules of the Catholic Church. Why do they___? SHouldn’t they ___ instead>
2: – explains workings of said church- That said, I agree maybe they could ___.
ETC

Example of Argument
1: WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE WHAT YOU BELIEVE, YOU’RE A MORON.
2: NO YOU SUCK
3: SHUT UP BOTH OF YOU

Which you rather have?

0

57

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 13th, 2007 @ 18:30

40-Many religions have different ideas of how to get to Heaven. Are you a Christian? Because Presbyterian Christians(which is what I am) believe that faith in Jesus as your Savior and spreading his Word earns you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven.
45-PERFECT IDEA!!! You have just figured out the solution to all world problems!
46-I think you mean international disagreements.
49-Great idea!
51-Hey, hey. Slow down there, kiddo. I sense a religion flame war coming on.

0

58

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 13th, 2007 @ 18:32

Sorry for the double post, but did anyone read my ideas on nuclear energy(not weapons) in post 37? Please raise your hand if you did.

0

59

the man for aeiou

in July 13th, 2007 @ 20:12

57- I am a christian. my dad used to be a presbyterian misister. I just think that goodness is more imported then jesus’s word

0

60

Pyro

in July 14th, 2007 @ 00:48

I think religion was originally thought up to encourage people to treat each other nicely and has instead backfired and become a bunch of arguing factions who for the most part hate each other. I’m not trying to make any generalizations here, as most religions get criticized because lots of people assume that extremists from various religions are the normal practicing believer. People confuse me sometimes.

0

61

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 14th, 2007 @ 08:03

58-I just don’t like nuclear energy becuase it is not renewable and it pollutes. I don’t think anyone was afraid of people using it as a bomb here, but when one of those plants explodes, I hope it isn’t near my house.

0

62

Jadestone

in July 14th, 2007 @ 11:21

49- And we would only feed them overcooked broccoli and vitamins untill they’re ready. That should speed things up.

Eep, bombs. What Museblog really needs to find preceding the Takeover is how to disarm pretty much all of the nukes from thousands of miles away. Like sending a string of information that currupts their software through them. They’ve probably all got tons of firewalls though…

0

63

agagabagabag

in July 14th, 2007 @ 11:47

60- Exactly!

0

64

Alice

in July 14th, 2007 @ 11:49

60- People are confusing.

0

65

jammin j

in July 14th, 2007 @ 13:16

61-i’m not sure that they can explode. they can have a disatorous meltdown, but w/o a critical mass an atomic explosion is out of the question. chernobyl is the abnormality. GAPA’s? i’m in need of info on chernobyl.

0

66

borzoi lover

in July 14th, 2007 @ 14:22

65-can’t help. i think that its meltdown is still afecting the enviroment today.

anyway, i’m putting my bets on hydrogen as a new scource of energy.

0

67

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 14th, 2007 @ 17:36

59-OK. Thanks. BTW, I am Presbyterian too.
62-We could send a whole bunch of HPBs over the Internet to hack into its software.
66-Yeah…hydrogen could work.

0

68

milik

in July 14th, 2007 @ 20:18

Even though not intended this thread is still about half religion. The other half nuclear stuff which is making me confused so i’m going back to books in progress

0

69

Penty the Pantsless Communist

in July 15th, 2007 @ 00:23

62 (Jadestone)- Do nuclear weapons even have software?

60 (Pyro)- Eh, think whatever you want. I personally think that religion is a result of the natural human tendency to think things through. Nobody attack me with your OMGZORZ I THOUGHT PENTY WAS AN ATHEIST RELIGION IS ILLOGICAL CRAP crap. We try to explain things we don’t understand; the manner of their explanation depends on the person and the amount of outside information they can absorb.

Scientifically, religion makes a lot of sense.

0

70

Sweet Melpomene

in July 15th, 2007 @ 10:38

60- Hmm, yes, that, and a way to explain the seemingly supernatural, before science came along to fix that. *reads last comment* Oh, yes, what Penty said. And, honestly [I think we talked about this in psych] it’s easier to understand and explain than many scientific concepts.

I’m atheist. And agnostic. Yes, I can be both.

0

71

Shadowkat

in July 15th, 2007 @ 13:31

No one should be told what they can have and what they can’t. If they make/buy it by normal, legal means, it’s no one else’s business as to the fact that they have it. They ca even do whatever they want with it, as long as it doesn’t affect anyone else.

0

72

FrigidSymphony

in July 15th, 2007 @ 16:03

The US is f—-d up. I can say that now more than ever, after spending three weeks in this hellhole. Even the liberal thinkers are frightfully uninformed. I couldn’t say who would be a better candidate, Obama or Clinton, although I’m leaning towards Obama. But he hasn’t been challenged yet, and we don’t know how he would handle problems.

0

73

the man for aeiou

in July 15th, 2007 @ 16:11

do all the swiss hate america,or is it just you?

0

74

FrigidSymphony

in July 15th, 2007 @ 16:20

73: Actually, it’s most Europeans.

0

75

Sweet Melpomene

in July 15th, 2007 @ 16:44

Everyone hates the USA. It’s the cool thing to do. *eyeroll*

0

76

Alice, Prime Muser of Water (Muserland)

in July 15th, 2007 @ 16:53

62- Okay. And what else? Hmmm. Actually, I’ve always like broccoli (not overcooked, though) and the only type of vitamin pill I’ve had used to be a great favorite of mine. Of course, it was vitamin C, and flavored like cherry, or something… But that might work. We just need to find a way to get them down to Antarctica. Maybe tell everyone that there worst enemy is comping out at the south pole?

0

77

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 15th, 2007 @ 16:58

73- A lot of europeans actually think the US is cool. It is cool to say “yes” or “no” or “it’s alright” or simple american frases to each other in horrid, danish and german accents that make thm sound like they have a seriuos cold. It’s ANNOYING.And then I have to explain that Paris Hilton is not a national hero. The more informed, and less star struck, have our problems.

0

78

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 15th, 2007 @ 17:02

72-Ooh. 3 weeks. You poor boy! I’ve only lived in it for 13 years. I guess I am lucky this country hasn’t started grating on my nerves! *laughs at FS* Sorry man, but that was hilarious. 3 weeks and you already hate it! [snip! no insults, please.]
Thanks for the laugh FS!

Ugh…I can’t type more. I have been watching home videos for like, 3 hours at least. My brain is slowly rotting away…

0

79

Jadestone

in July 15th, 2007 @ 17:33

Heh, I just remembered this, so I might as wlel type it.*

My cousin (I saw her in China, which is where I heard this) just graduated from high school this year, and so the valedictorian gave a speach at graduation. However, he turned in a different speach than what he read- and he drew every politically incorrect thing into it he could, he ranted about religion, politics, everything. With phrases like “If I want to include God in my summer, I can, and this is the right choice” (there were members of other religions in the audience and class) and “Peace or War, Love or Hate, Truth or Liberalism.” At first everyone thought it was some sort of odd joke, but he was dead serious. O.o

*These are NOT reflecting any of my views. I rather dissagree with lots of what he said, actually, but wouldn’t publicly anounce it to people who didn’ want to listen.

0

80

Axa

in July 15th, 2007 @ 18:01

72- Now that’s not fair. You were mostly on the west coast weren’t you? Arizona and perhaps California? Also three weeks isn’t nearly enough to let you experience a country. Of course there’s not much I can say to sway your views. You thought that before so any experience you had only seeks to confirm it.

I’m sorry though, you didn’t enjoy your stay here.

0

81

jammin j

in July 15th, 2007 @ 18:05

72-y’know what? i think you may have a point there. we are seriously whacked.

0

82

FrigidSymphony

in July 15th, 2007 @ 18:49

78: I didn’t think you would dislike your country. Thought you adored your fantastic, one-nation-under-god, freetheworld country with its fearless commander in chief?

0

83

Dancergirl13

in July 15th, 2007 @ 20:07

Ok no offense but I wish we werent in the war, its just more killings every day for no good reason. One person is too many, and just think about all the innocent children and others who have died?

0

84

Duncan_Quagmire

in July 15th, 2007 @ 20:37

80 – Here’s the thing though… the majority of the world *does* hate America. It makes sense when you think about it: the two things most people see of America are war and movies/TV. And with Baywatch as the most-watched TV show in the world…

0

85

dark duke of darkness

in July 15th, 2007 @ 21:56

39-i knew that… just copying whoever said it first.
50-what a waste of time. command c, command v.
67-stay away from hacking . one cannot “hack the internet’s software.”
77-mostly only the stupid ones.
on America. i really like the founding principles. i do not like its government, and i think a large portion of its system of government is extremely outdated. most people in it are horrendously fat and ignorant, but if you stick in the intellectual circles in bi cities, its alright. basically america need a governmental makeover, and new population. otherwise, its great!

0

86

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 16th, 2007 @ 05:08

Oh please, the whole world is whacked. there’s genecide in Darfur,and no one cares because the oil price is going up, and that is way more interesting than dead children. Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse comic books are racist and capitalist, but 70% of kids in Denmark have a subscription to them. All the wolves in europe are dead, and hunters are working on the deer. Dogs in southern europe are stoned to death by schoolkids. Africa is all at war, if only europe had stayed out of its afairs! The government everywhere is corrupt, and Fidel Castro isn’t all that bad. Cuba had offered hundreds of desperately needed doctors to come to Louisiana to help after the huricane., but I believe the wording of the government was “H*** No!” OI wonder how many people died because of the government’s mule like stubbardness.

It’s a wonderful life. Not.

0

87

jammin j

in July 16th, 2007 @ 09:33

86-the world has gone from a place to live in to a place to survive in. peace? what an outdated term. if world peace is ever acheived, it’ll be because the human race is wiped out. then the world can have peace. indeed, your last line is true.

85-yeah, hacking the internet is not the smartest thing to do. take a page from kevin mitnick. he hacked NORAD and ended up in solitary confinement for a couple of months. went to jail for a couple of years and went on probation for 2 years. now he is a “legit” security advisor. read his books. and your take on america is one a completely agree with.

0

88

Dancergirl13

in July 16th, 2007 @ 11:39

85- “Most people in it are horrendisly fat and ignorent” That is not true, although there are many people who are overweight you cant say most of them, that is a steriotype.

I am mad at America’s government though, I mean look at all the starving people in world, look at all the problems in south America and Africa, and then look at all the Americans sitting on the couch eating junk food with no worries in the world except maybe that they wont be able to go swimming becuase its supposed to rain. Why dont more people do things to help? I know there are organizations and things, and thats great, but if we got more people to help look at what we could do to help the world, there are too many couch potatoes who dont care about anthing but themselves.

0

89

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 16th, 2007 @ 12:22

80-FS was on the west coast? California? SWEET!! I live there! FS, if you want some fun(and have some money) go to Disneyland! It’s better than DisneyWorld!(That is what many Californians think, but I have never been to DIsneyWorld only Disneyland) If you don’t have much money, go to the Santa Cruz boardwalk! It is the best! But all their food is fried.
79-Good for him. Political correctedness is ruining the world. DId you know that their is a new thing in the LA County School District saying that guys who percieve themselves as girls can use the girls restrooms? Teachers also HAVE to support the homosexual lifestyle in their classes, and they also are trying to stop referring to boys and girls as “boys” and “girls” because they don’t want to be sexist! Puh-leez! They want to teach that we are really all the same gender, and there are no “boys” and “girls,” which makes no sense at all.
82-LOL. Yeah, if only it were “one nation under God.”

0

90

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 16th, 2007 @ 12:26

86-Boy, that is depressing. Why don’t we just all go kill ourselves because life is just so UNBEARABLE! *smirks* OK, really, that is sad stuff, but focus on the good stuff. Know why Iraq “war” seems bad? Because the MEDIA isn’t focusing on the good stuff. People expect life to be bad, so the news only tells of the bad stuff. It doesn’t talk about all the good we’ve done in Iraq. Did anyone here know that in the Battle of Normandy in WW2, more people died in ONE DAY(around 7000 people) than in all of the Iraq War?

0

91

Axa

in July 16th, 2007 @ 12:57

89- Okay first, yes Disneyland is far superior. XD -fellow Californian agrees-
But I don’t see why it’s a problem to support homosexuality. If they don’t that’s a form of discrimination which is not to be encouraged. Unless I missed your meaning.

0

92

Penty the Pantsless Communist

in July 16th, 2007 @ 13:04

89 (Donaldo)- Personally, I wouldn’t mind if some people stopped to think about the way their words came across to other people. Maybe we (OMG) don’t agree all the time! Maybe other people have valid points sometimes!

Lately, our government policy seems to be based on the idea that we don’t have to be nice because we can destroy the world four and a half times. It may be worth noting where this lack of political correctness has gotten us: most of the rest of the world hates us.

Also, if God exists (I shan’t argue one way or another; you and everyone else is perfectly entitled to their beliefs on the matter) we are going to be one nation under him whether we like it or not.

90 (Donaldo)- So apparently Iraqi civilians aren’t people now. Well, I probably should’ve guessed.

I’m sorry if I come across as rude, but if you’re going to–eh, never mind.

0

93

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 16th, 2007 @ 14:05

90- One child is dead. That is worth something. So what if one battle killed more than a war? Doesn’t it matter if even one person is dead, that is a life.

What good has America done in Iraq? The soldier state, just like the police state, is brutal, and is trained to be brutal. We messed the Middle East up, just like we mess everything up. The US just needs to mind its own business. So we get our tallest building destroyed and many peple die. That’s no reason to try and take over the Middle Eastern countrie’s gvernment. The US is constantly trying to influence things where it should just mind its own business. (Sorry for the rant, but I’m honestly tired of it!)

0

94

Jadestone

in July 16th, 2007 @ 14:15

89- What exactly is wrong with supporting homosexuals? I wish that all the states gave them equal treatment, they’re no different from us except that they are attracted to a different gender. What exactly is wrong with that? And while we are not the same gender, both of them are equal and should be treated as such.

0

95

cilroxmysox

in July 16th, 2007 @ 14:20

94- amen

0

96

jammin j

in July 16th, 2007 @ 14:41

93-umm, actually, we should not have sat back and let the 9/11 incident go. it has something to do with our terrrorist policy. if we just let them destroy one of our largest economical centers and get away scott free, then america will be perceived as weak and be subject to thousands of more terrorist attcks. retaliation, in that cse, was the only viable option. we went into iraq based on retaliation and the, i’m pretty sure grounded, fear of saddam possesion of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. we did not “go in and try to take over the MIddle Eastern countries gov’t”. the situation now is completely different than 5 years ago. granted, now we are not doing the iraqi people a favour, but 5 years ago we were doing the american people a favour by trying to prevent more innocent deaths by terrorism. you have got to see the world through the lens of five years ago. all the problems in iraq now do not trace back to bush’s retaliation efforts, which was a defensive move on his part. (or at least thats what it was seen as then). now it may not be seen as that. the situation has changed. back then it was seen as “the best defense is a good offense”.
94-lets avoid homosexual debate. to sum it up, donald’s veiws on homosexuality are based on his religion, as are mine. if you start picking a “homosexual fight”, then all you’re doing is starting up religion debate. and that will definitely become a “flame war”.
what do you think about the lawsuit against Slayer? in it, the parents of a murder victim-a 15 yr old girl-sued slayer saying that since the perpertrators-3 teenage boys-had been “inspired” to do the deed by Slayer, they should be convicted, or something to that effect. very weird, isn’t it? any opinions?

0

97

jammin j

in July 16th, 2007 @ 14:42

95-are you new?

0

98

Shadowkat

in July 16th, 2007 @ 14:59

Ok, I’m leaving this thread, for now…not only can I not keep up, but I’m also being ignored!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

99

Duncan_Quagmire

in July 16th, 2007 @ 15:09

While we’re on the subjects of Iraq and the war on terrorism:

â€œNo nation, no matter how powerful, can assure the safety of its people as long as economic desperation and injustice can mingle with tyranny and fanaticism… The United States cannot win the war on terrorism unless we confront the social and political roots of poverty.â€
–Colin Powell

“It’s very hard to be angry with someone who just fed you. It’s a lot harder to drop a bomb on somebody who just built a school in your village.”
–Rob Bell

Discuss…

0

100

Ã–tzi

in July 16th, 2007 @ 15:58

Frankly, I’m ashamed to be an American. I don’t want to be what it means. Our government is badly run, our trade system is unjust, tax cuts are seperating classes more and more, institutionalized racism and sexism is rampant, and we’re coughing out huge amounts of pollution. We claim “Liberty and Justice for all!” while children starve to death right here in the United States. The international community despises us. And we’re killing people for oil. I don’t want to be associated with that.

0

101

Penty the Pantsless Communist

in July 16th, 2007 @ 16:01

98 (Shadowkat)- I’m sorry if you’re being ignored, but believe me, you’re not alone. These threads are basically a bunch of people yelling at each other, and unless you’re being particularly offensive you are unlikely to get a response.

What, me, disgruntled?

96 (jammin j)- Even looking at the Iraq war from five years ago, it didn’t make sense. Saddam, despite the horrible things he did, was not connected to the September 11th attacks. In invading Iraq, we spread our resources thin, convinced half the world that our country is full of uneducated fatheads, destabilized a country, and provided terrorists with more reasons to hate us.

As D_Q said, the roots of terrorism lie in poverty. It’s quite easy to turn to fanaticism when you’re dissatisfied with your life as it is; if you have nothing, what is there to lose? If we’d put all the money we’ve spent on the Iraq war into foreign aid, we would not be in as deep a mess as we currently are.

There’s a lovely quote out there, though I can’t remember where I heard it: “If war is terrible, then what exactly is a war on terror?” We’re always talking about how much more wonderful we are than the rest of the world, so why can’t attempt to live up to our reputation? Instead of stooping to the level of the terrorists (which is what we are doing by waging war on them), we could remove the breeding ground for terrorism.

Urg. I should probably reply to the homosexuality “debate” but I do not see the point as I’ve made my views perfectly clear on, liek, every other HT thread evar. Penty, feathers ruffled, floats off aimlessly on the breeze.

0

102

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 16th, 2007 @ 16:01

(98) Lack of response doesn’t necessarily mean you’re being ignored. Maybe nobody disagrees with what you’re saying. (It seems to me that people are more likely to reply to posts they disagree with.)

0

103

Ã–tzi

in July 16th, 2007 @ 16:03

96: I disagree with your point on homosexuality. There is nothing about Christianity that condemns homosexuals- that’s just a popular interpretation.

0

104

widdershins (e~a)

in July 16th, 2007 @ 16:58

89, 94- It isn’t very nice to lash out at someone for being who they are when you are a figure of authority. If you are a homosexual or a questioning student, it is nice to have someone of authority support and be kind to you. It’s not very nice to constantly hear derrogatory terms surrounding you, whomever you are. It is important for teachers to tell other students it isn’t okay to discriminate against people for just being homosexual, female, male, of a different religion, race or country. It just isn’t nice to hear discriminatory comments in general.

101- here’s a hug!

0

105

widdershins (e~a)

in July 16th, 2007 @ 17:09

A quote to think about:

“Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?” — Ernest Gaines

0

106

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 16th, 2007 @ 18:21

91-So do you support homosexuality? My point is this: Political correctedness has gone too far. Do you think it is sexist to call a boy a “boy” and a girl a “girl”? I don’t. Political correctedness is making us all seem too equal. I believe in equal rights(please Vixen, don’t start on me about feminism!) for men and women and blacks and whites, but come on! We are allowed to have our own beliefs about stuff, like homosexuality. Supporting and embracing homosexuality-meaning the teachers have to say it is a good thing-is offending many people-kids, parents, and teachers alike-who believe it is bad. This taken-too-far political correctedness is offending many parents, who are trying to keep their kids safe from that kind of stuff.
92-I never said that! I am just saying that the media never focuses on all of the advances and goodness that has come from the “war!”
93-Interesting. I am interested on your views on abortion. Same with you, Penty. I am completely against it. It is evil and wrong. You are killing someone. It is a life.
94-There isn’t. Americans do have freedom of speech. But in the school district, there is. Many parents who are trying to keep their kids safe from the kind of stuff are now sending their kids to school where they are being taught that it is GOOD. Also, would you like it if a guy came walking into the girls bathroom suddenly, and went to the bathroom there? And then he got away with it because he said he perceived himself as a girl? And also, the thing about us all being the same gender because we don’t want to offend anyone, that totally ruins genetics and sex-linked traits! How stupid does that sound? Being called a “boy” is not offensive to me, because that is what I am! Here, let’s try an EXPERIMENT: If being called a “girl” is NOT offensive to you, raise your hand. THis experiment is for GIRLS ONLY.
95-You new? Great to have you!
100-Then don’t be. I don’t see why, if so many people hate the US, just don’t leave. If they hate it so, find a better country(This is where FS comes in and says “Yeah! A better country…like Sweden!” You do come from Sweden, right, FS? OR is it Switzerland?)
101-Actually, to most Americans, it did. At the start of the war, most Americans supported it. Also, on removing breeding ground for terrorists, do you mean remove the Middle East? *is very confused*
103-Actually, Christians, in general, are against homosexuality, but in many of their cases, it isn’t just because of their religion.
104-You obviously don’t get it. At least in my school district, teachers don’t state opinions on sexuality. For more info, read above what I wrote to Jadestone.

0

107

Ã–tzi

in July 16th, 2007 @ 18:36

I’m moving to Canada for school. But that doesn’t change the fact that I am an American, and as such, I have a responsibility to my country. Dissatisfaction does not equal hatred. I’m sad about the way things are here, and I want there to be a better future for my generation. In my book, that would translate to love more than hate. I care about this country enough to want to fix it, whereas if I hated it, then I obviously would rather back and watch it implode. I love my country, but I fear my government and I dislike what has become associated with my nationality.

0

108

Ã–tzi

in July 16th, 2007 @ 18:44

And regarding homosexuality: Does any person here who is anti-gay actually know any gay people? I’m straight, but I have friends and teachers who are GBLTQ folks, and they are just people. They aren’t ‘evil’, and homosexuality isn’t a disease. It isn’t contaigious.

0

109

widdershins (e~a)

in July 16th, 2007 @ 18:44

106- teachers shouldn’t be forced to change their personal beliefs but when one is in the public there are many people out there who are offended by many things. It is rather important to be respectfull of the beleifs of others whether or not you agree with them. One may be offended by support of homosexuality but that doesn’t mean one ought to outwardly hate homosexuals. It is rather insulting and unpleasant to be called various derrogatory terms. I understand that you are against homosexuality but it is a matter of having respect for others who may themselves be homosexual. You may not like that about them but it doesn’t mean that you should treat them poorly. It is the teacher’s job to make the classroom a safe enviroment for all; a place where one feels one can be accepted for who they are. That means if someone using gay as a synonym for stupid, a rather derrogatory thing that happens more than you’d think, the teacher should point out that that is not true and it isn’t okay to discriminate against others. The teacher doesn’t have to support homosexuality, just make ALL of their students comfortable so that they can learn.

“Actually, Christians, in general, are against homosexuality, but in many of their cases, it isn’t just because of their religion.” Generalizing isn’t that smart of an idea. There are Christians who support homosexuality, there are christians who disagree with homosexuality. Like any group of people christians have a range of opinions on homosexuality. Just because the stereotypical belief is that all are against homosexuality doesn’t mean there isn’t a range of beliefs about it.

0

110

the man for aeiou

in July 16th, 2007 @ 18:45

106-oh, this is why my dad became a ucc miniser! (ucc-united chuch of cirst) Presbyterian’s are so conseritive!

0

111

widdershins (e~a)

in July 16th, 2007 @ 18:45

107- agreed. Except, ya know, I’m not moving to Canada…. eh heh. The rest, however, I agree with.

0

112

Sweet Melpomene

in July 16th, 2007 @ 18:51

Donaldo, what, exactly, do you have against homosexuality?

For one, what harm can come from teachers supporting that sort of lifestyle? It’s not like they’re undermining or not-supporting heterosexuality by doing so. It seems nice to me that LA is trying to promote something you clearly lack: tolerance and respect.

Also, I think that, if a school-age male truly perceived himself as female, it would be completely fine for him to use the women’s room. In that school setting, it would be fairly obvious to all faculty if he were simply saying that because he’s some sort of voyeur, don’t you think so? Really, who can’t spot the sort of guy who’d lie about something like that for the simple reason that he’s a pervert? And what normal, straight male would say that he’d like to be female, if he weren’t? Do you realize the social repercussions of these scenarios? Honestly, it’s not like they’re just giving men a pass to the girls’ room.

One day, this will all just be some silly thing that happened in the past, and people will ask themselves why “people back then were so intolerant and not very accepting.”

108- Applause, applause. Well stated.

0

113

biblioRose

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:04

I don’t understand why people argue about homesexuality. If you are, wondderful I hope you find someone you love and that people accept you. If not, the same to you. Someone elses sexuality has nothing to do with me. Who am I (or anyone for that matter)to deny love to people? Also as a christian I firmly disagree with discrimination agianst homosexuals. God told us of love and all those people want to do is love, just someone of their same gender. If God made them, than didn’t he create them that way? thats what I believe anyway. I must admit the thought of liking another girl grosses me out a little, so thats probably the way homosexuals think of liking someone of a different gender. i wouldn’t want to be forced to act agianst what my heart truly felt.

0

114

agagabagabag

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:08

78- How funny that l’ve noticed.

0

115

Axa

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:12

113- That’s a wonderful thing to say…My hope is that this generation has more people who think like that.

Also, I agree, wouldn’t that mean God made them that way? And in any case, Christianity is about love, not hate…so acceptiing people is what we should do.

Not that I’m very religious anymore of course. But that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate that message.

0

116

dark duke of darkness

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:17

106- we have come to a point in science if you see yourself as a member of the opposite gender, you can be that. you obviously think homosexuality is bad. if it is not because of your religion, then why is it? homosexuality is not a good thing, just a heterosexuality is not a good thing. why would parents try to keep children “safe” from homosexuality? (other than religion, of course) if their kids are gay, they will simply live a miserable lie for their entire life, because they think that they are unnatural. and how can we be too equal? we are all equal. we are not the same. if political correctness makes us seem the same, however, it is bad. for example, i agree with you about gender. a part of someone’s identity is their gender, and for someone to take that away s wrong. if someone wants to be seen as a member of the opposite gender, they can. but they cannot be seen as the same as everyone else. because they are not.
you can have your own beliefs about “stuff”, as long as they are not hateful. if i thought Taiwanese people were “wrong”, and horrible, i should have the right to think that. that does not mean that it should be a good thing for me to think this, or that anyone shouldn’t try to convince me otherwise. i think you would agree with me on this. why is it so different with homosexuals? saying homosexuality is bad is like saying that Taiwanese people are bad.
**************************************************************************
he’s swiss. it shouldnt really be that hard to remember.
“92-I never said that! I am just saying that the media never focuses on all of the advances and goodness that has come from the “war!””
what advances and goodness? if someone like bill Oreilly (the media, no?) cannot find advances and goodness from this war, what can there possibly be?
105-i like that. who is ernest gaines?
103-its pretty hard to interpret it any other way.
96 “we went into iraq based on retaliation and the, i’m pretty sure grounded, fear of saddam possesion of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons of mass destruction. we did not “go in and try to take over the MIddle Eastern countries gov’t”. the situation now is completely different than 5 years ago. granted, now we are not doing the iraqi people a favour, but 5 years ago we were doing the american people a favour by trying to prevent more innocent deaths by terrorism.”
trying to prevent deaths is not the same as preventing deaths. by attacking people, we create more terrorists, not less. i’m pretty sure we cant kill all the terrorists in the world. the more we kill, the more will appear. and how exactly are we retaliating against 9/11 by invading iraq?

0

117

E2MB

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:26

Okay, here’s something I don’t get. I’m looking at the 20 comments on the recent comments sidebar and 40% of them are from this thread, all of them apparently in some sort of argument about weather homosexuality is something good, evil, or to be ignored. (I’m not reading this thread for fear of reading something nasty.)

Is this what the GAPAs created MuseBlog for? For Musers to insult each other’s religions and each other *ahem ahem not just FS* and argue about topics such as homosexuality? I mean, come on! We’re all Musers here! Let’s face it, we’re here to have fun! Throw a party! Talk to other Musers! I find it awesome that by coming here I can talk to Musers not just all over the United States, but from Europe, Asia, and other places too! But if all you’re going to do is argue about homosexuality, I’m not sure I want to be here.

Seriously people, just chill. 50 years ago people were horrified if two races married, and 70 years ago people were horrified if their son or daughter married someone from a foreign religion! 200 years ago, marrying somebody from a foreign country was horrifying, and 500 years ago you were burned as a witch for marrying a left-handed person (oh the horror)!

0

118

Axa

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:40

117- This is Hot Topics so naturally there is going to be some disagreement.

0

119

E2MB

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:50

118 – Yes, but why should we even need a Hot Topics?

0

120

the man for aeiou

in July 16th, 2007 @ 19:54

Freinds,musers,people,lead me your screen.
I come here to discuse,not argue.
arguing is flameing.
discusing is what this is made for.
so let it be.the noble gapas have said”NO FLAMING”
they have said we are not saying plesle,this time.
so snip the post gapas.
so be anderstanding,mber.
lets all arge to disarge.

no people, pleasle understand,this is stupid. on all the ht threads we talk about this. we must stop.
singed,
the man for aeiou,
musebloger

0

121

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 16th, 2007 @ 20:06

(119) Well, in principle, anybody who wasn’t in the mood for controversy could simply skip this thread. But it doesn’t seem to work that way in practice.

0

122

Sweet Melpomene

in July 16th, 2007 @ 20:16

120- Julius Caesar! Marc Antony’s speech! Ish. Either way, applause.

0

123

the man for aeiou

in July 16th, 2007 @ 20:19

122-thank you,thank you!

0

124

agagabagabag

in July 16th, 2007 @ 23:01

120- Flaming does not equal arguing.

0

125

Alice

in July 17th, 2007 @ 00:29

117- Glad I missed that. I used to be really comfortable with MB, but now I’m kind of afraid I’ll encounter something disturbing if I read the wrong thread. I have never been on Romance and Relationships for that reason, and I stay off HT (mostly) and indeed any thread that might turn to something icky. I’m developing quite an eye for threads that will start discussing inappropriate stuff. Isn’t this a forum for kids?

0

126

Glassboro

in July 17th, 2007 @ 07:11

117- The MB is partly to have fun, yes, but it’s also a place for us to discuss things that we don’t off the net. At least, it is for me. If you don’t like this thread, stay off of it! Doesn’t that make more sense than complaining? These people chose to be here!!!

0

127

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 07:30

125-I’m with you. I have been on R+R, but only when there were no posts on just friends. And it gets weird and mushy there. It gets very bad on HT, Religions, Evolution, GW, and the origins thread right now. I do not post much on any, and most I almost never post on. I like to stay on threads where I can be nice to other people or help them in some way. There have been SIX HT threads this year alone, almost one a month, and I don’t think one mind has been changed. When you argue, like people do here, you make the other person feel like you are a bully, and so your idea can’t be very good because you need to push it to work. And 4 R+Rs. Maybe it has helped people drag themselves kicking and screaming through another day, but the same people keep coming back with more problems.

Now I must ask the highest GAPAs, who I’m sure must not be very happy seeing the people they are trying to make happy screaming in rage at eachother, to zap every post that will make somebody else feel hurt, something look wrong when it doesn’t have to be, or that contains anything mean.

Red-tailed HAWK

0

128

Penty the Pantsless Communist

in July 17th, 2007 @ 10:38

Hokai pplz. I don’t know if you’ve thought of this one, but:

DISAGREEMENT=/=ARGUING=/=FLAMING.

From the tone of several previous posts, I get the idea that certain bloggers think that to get along and have fun we have to agree all the time. um whut? I get along fine with, for example, MG, I enjoy talking to her, and our political beliefs are radically different. The thing is that we agree to disagree.

R-tH, the point of HT threads was never to change any minds. At least originally, they were places for Musers to discuss sensitive political or religious topics. I don’t deny that they’ve degenerated mostly into “UR MOM/NO URS” arguments these days, but saying that HT threads fail because no minds have been changed just doesn’t make any sense.

Granted, they fail for other reasons. I gripe about this all the time, in case you couldn’t tell. I used to go on HT for intelligent debate. The notion seems rather laughable now, but if you read the old HT threads, you’ll see people who actually knew what they were talking about holding sustained debates about subjects they disagreed on. I won’t deny that there was the odd insult, but the point was that they were odd, not a feature of the threads.

Alice, Museblog may be a place for kids, but it’s also a place for kids with a certain level of maturity. It means, among other things, accepting that bloggers are probably going to talk about things that make you uncomfortable and staying away from those discussions or stating your views on them calmly and rationally rather than butting in and saying “xcuze me but i dont liek secks giggle giggle.” For the most part, Musebloggers seem to have mastered the “staying away” part. It’s the “calm and rational” bit that seems to trip most of us up.

Several bloggers appear to be under the impression that this calm sort of debate (eg the old HT threads) is the same thing as the current random jibes at people’s mothers (eg more recent HT threads). This is not only wrong but, quite frankly, not very intelligent. This whole “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” mentality that appears to be in vogue on the blog at the moment does not make a lot of sense. The world (virtual or otherwise) is not divided into “nice people” and “ebul flamers.” I would never describe myself as a nice person, but I am not a flamer. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH ME IS OBVIOUSLY EXTREMELY DUMB AND DOESN’T KNOW ANYTHING LET’S ALL LAUGH AT THEM AND START A WITCH HUNT.

This has been a rather long and rambly argument, which I blame on the fact that it is before noon and I have not had any caffeine, but my basic point is this: HT means that you come in knowing that people will disagree with you, but agreeing nonetheless to respect what they think.

-beats blog with cane-

0

129

Sweet Melpomene

in July 17th, 2007 @ 10:45

117- This is a “Hot Topics” thread. Is homosexuality not one of the “hot” issues going around the world today? I’d say it is. So it’s quite reasonable to expect a discussion on it on such a thread.

Darlings, this may sound rather cruel and trite all at once, but, in life, you’ll have to encounter things that may hurt you, make you feel uncomfortable, or may “look wrong.” Avoid these threads if you must, but some people seem to enjoy the “discussions” on them. And the vast majority of us attempt to keep things PG, or PG-13, at the worst. We all have our ways of relating happenings and ideas… *shrugs*

As the man for aeiou so eloquently stated, let us agree to disagree, keep it civil, and at least edit our posts before submitting them in order to remain so.

Now, what were we talking about again?

0

130

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 11:22

128-Please put your pants back on thankyou! But I’m not saying minds SHOULD be changed, I just think trying to explain why your idea is the best implies you want minds changed, so let’s argue in a way that talks about the issue without trying to change minds. And if I do say so, caps lock and bold and such isn’t vital to a good argument.

0

131

the man for aeiou

in July 17th, 2007 @ 11:56

This is whered: the last 23 posts are about the blog. this is trurning into a hot topic itself!

0

132

jammin j

in July 17th, 2007 @ 12:35

131-indeed! thats funny. the very existence of a hot topics thread is turning into….itself! a hot topic! circles within circles. quite conveluted.
i am going to quite myself now. i have stated my veiws and all know my stance on issues today. if i keep arguing, the same argument on (insert argument here: homosexuality, iraq war, global warming, religion etc.) will continue to repeat itself. so i’m finished. i’ll just lurk and think about what the wise MBers will talk about today. it is quite interesting to spend a day thinking about what all youse think. all of you are so diverse, that i could have a mental shutdown processing all your different veiws. i mean, we have christians who are on completely different sides of one issue. not to mention the non-religious. after the religion thread closed, i spent hours composing replies to arguments fridgey posted months later. it was fun. well, nice speaking w/ you all. so see u on other threads! ————–jammin j

0

133

E2MB

in July 17th, 2007 @ 12:38

~~Part of the reason~~Pretty much the reason I’m still deathly afraid of telling my parents about MuseBlog is because of these hot topics threads! There’s stuff on here they would never ever want me to read, which is the main reason I stopped coming here except to post stuff like this! “Yes, MuseBlog is a place for kids, but it’s also a place for kids with a certain level of maturity.” I’m sorry, but there are MBers as young as 10, maybe even younger. If we have young kids on here, we can’t just keep talking about homosexuality, abortion, and all the other innapropriate stuff! Furthermore, the arguments have been pretty stupid, with everybody slinging the same weapons at each other over and over again! If we’re going to post stuff like this in broad daylight, we need to put a notice on MuseBlog saying there’s innapropriate stuff on here so young people keep out! I’m sorry, but keeping it to PG-13 is not enough! We all want to keep this blog a place where everybody is welcome, right?

0

134

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 12:44

133-I think there are enough younger people on here that these threads are too much. Either they need to be cut back to less violent topics, or they should be deleted from the blog. I fully agree with you, and I don’t even come here normally myself (and I’m 12!)

RtH

0

135

Shadowkat

in July 17th, 2007 @ 13:20

101-Meh…well, I’m not going to say something I don’t mean, so whatever, I suppose.

102-Thanks for the comfort…I guess I’m just fairly agreeable, then (Ha! Yeah, right. people just don’t agree with what I’m saying, yet can’t figure out a way to debate it, so they don’t.). (No offense to you, Roberto, darling, I’m basically just saying what I think…hope you don’t mind?)

0

136

E2MB

in July 17th, 2007 @ 13:44

134 – I agree.

0

137

E2MB

in July 17th, 2007 @ 13:45

Whoops! Sorry for the pointless post.

0

138

Dancergirl13

in July 17th, 2007 @ 14:22

This thread makes me feel….sad I guess. I agree with 134.

0

139

Penty the Pantsless Communist

in July 17th, 2007 @ 14:27

133 (E2MB)- I think you misunderstood me when I said “a certain level of maturity.” I don’t mean that there’s an age limit, or that we can talk about totally R-rated stuff; it’s more an ’emotionally mature enough not to attack people for being different’ thing I was talking about. We’re all smart, so we should be able to figure out not to scream at people who don’t share our beliefs, yes?

Mm…about the age thing… When the HT threads started, over a year ago, I’m pretty sure that the average age of the bloggers was significantly higher, 13-14 instead of 12-ish. (This, you understand, is based on my own perception of the blog rather than anything remotely scientific.) Therefore, we were able to talk about more ‘adult’ issues. Please note that I don’t consider homosexuality or abortion or whatever as ‘adult’ or ‘inappropriate.’

I’m against censoring HT to try and target the blog to an even younger audience. For one thing, it won’t work, and for another, I loathe censorship in all forms. A warning that the thread may contain civil discussion of topics that could be considered offensive, or something similar but better-worded, would suffice. And if a five-year-old reads the thread and is scarred for life (highly unlikely), well, you can’t say we didn’t warn ’em.

Also, Museblog is never going to be G-rated and crawling with seven-year-old boys. Or at least, I devoutly hope not. Personally, I like where we are now, PG bordering on PG-13 but with less swearing.

I wouldn’t miss HT threads if we ditched them altogether (at least for a little bit) as they’ve pretty much descended into horribly repetitive flamewars anyway. But the more politically oriented amongst us are going to want to discuss this stuff, and giving it its own thread is a lot better for the general PG-ness of the blog than letting it take over the random thread.

0

140

E2MB

in July 17th, 2007 @ 14:48

I’m not saying we should target MuseBlog at a young audience. I’m just saying that there are a lot of younger people here now.

At the very least, the GAPAs could just tag threads that are PG & bordering PG-13 with a simple notice saying that parental guidance is suggested on these threads for younger MBers. This is what Penty suggested, more or less, and I agree with this idea.

0

141

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 14:57

139-Odd name for someone who doesn’t want control…All I’m saying is there are many 11 and even 10 or 9-year olds here, and you can’t avoid this thread when half of the posts in recent comments are for it.

140-Yup, something like that…

I’m really not sure what makes teens want to argue…all the time.

0

142

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:07

What if we eliminated the “Recent Comments” section? Then you’d have to go to threads to see what people are saying there. Hot Topics threads would be easier to ignore.

0

143

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:13

142-Ooh but I love recent comments! It not only shows if people have responded to you, but shows if a GAPA is moderating by if your own posts are up! Recent comments r0x!

0

144

violindino

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:22

A lot of this stuff is too… intense? dark? scary?? for younger MBers. At any rate, I don’t usually go on hot topics threads. They are always full of arguing, and people just point out problems with other people’s religioun, country, or personal choices. Always other people’s problems, never theirs. I don’t think this is what MB is about, nor what the GAPAs had in mind when they create these threads.

141: Well, for one thing, it’s pretty much the only thing on the news and radio shows. Maybe arguing makes people feel like the adults on these shows. shameful…

0

145

Axa

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:22

119- Having not read any of the other comments yet: We originally needed a Hot Topics thread to discuss world issues and political topics in a place other than the random thread, where people who didn’t want to talk about that complained that…they didn’t want to talk about that. It’s the same reason we need any other thread. For instance I can’t imagine people trying to do a RRR on the random thread can you?

141-True enough, but there are also a number of older bloggers who would like a place to talk about such things.

This is kind of sad we’re even talking about this. Seriously guys. what.

0

146

E2MB

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:25

143 – Recents comments does rock! I certainly wouldn’t want it taken away!

0

147

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:32

“What” is right. What are people thinking when they hit submit? Do they realize what they are doing is hurting someone else? do they really believe what they are doing is the only true and happy way to be?

0

148

Purple Panda

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:51

No, I love the recent comments section!! Maybe you could just put it down at the bottom of the page, or something. I don’t know. But don’t get rid of it!

0

149

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 15:59

148-Still, I would want to use it anyway and so would slide down. I have my browser window at just the right size so I can hit the “page down” button on my keyboard twice and it lands exactly on recent comments. Am I too into MBlog?

0

150

Sweet Melpomene

in July 17th, 2007 @ 16:46

What, exactly [be specific!] is offending people?

We talk about facts of life, whether or not some people would like to admit those facts exist. Controversial things happen, they simply do. There’s nothing wrong with concern about, discussion of, and disagreement about them. Ignoring them leads to stagnation. That’s not good.

I see no reason to remove recent comments. I rarely read them, but they’re a staple on the blog…

0

151

the man for aeiou

in July 17th, 2007 @ 17:07

This is the most civil hot topics therd ever! Most of the time a) fs is yelling about how insane religon is or b)other mbers are yelling about religon. the debates were quite time intill post 89 with the stament:
“DId you know that their is a new thing in the LA County School District saying that guys who percieve themselves as girls can use the girls restrooms? Teachers also HAVE to support the homosexual lifestyle in their classes, and they also are trying to stop referring to boys and girls as “boys” and “girls” because they don’t want to be sexist! Puh-leez! They want to teach that we are really all the same gender, and there are no “boys” and “girls,” which makes no sense at all.”-Donaldo
and then:
“But I don’t see why it’s a problem to support homosexuality. If they don’t that’s a form of discrimination which is not to be encouraged. Unless I missed your meaning.”-axa
and:
“89- What exactly is wrong with supporting homosexuals? I wish that all the states gave them equal treatment, they’re no different from us except that they are attracted to a different gender. What exactly is wrong with that? And while we are not the same gender, both of them are equal and should be treated as such.”-jadestone
then donaldo said:
“91-So do you support homosexuality? My point is this: Political correctedness has gone too far. Do you think it is sexist to call a boy a “boy” and a girl a “girl”? I don’t. Political correctedness is making us all seem too equal. I believe in equal rights(please Vixen, don’t start on me about feminism!) for men and women and blacks and whites, but come on! We are allowed to have our own beliefs about stuff, like homosexuality. Supporting and embracing homosexuality-meaning the teachers have to say it is a good thing-is offending many people-kids, parents, and teachers alike-who believe it is bad. This taken-too-far political correctedness is offending many parents, who are trying to keep their kids safe from that kind of stuff.
94-There isn’t. Americans do have freedom of speech. But in the school district, there is. Many parents who are trying to keep their kids safe from the kind of stuff are now sending their kids to school where they are being taught that it is GOOD. Also, would you like it if a guy came walking into the girls bathroom suddenly, and went to the bathroom there? And then he got away with it because he said he perceived himself as a girl? And also, the thing about us all being the same gender because we don’t want to offend anyone, that totally ruins genetics and sex-linked traits! How stupid does that sound? Being called a “boy” is not offensive to me, because that is what I am!”
with widdershins saying:
“106- teachers shouldn’t be forced to change their personal beliefs but when one is in the public there are many people out there who are offended by many things. It is rather important to be respectfull of the beleifs of others whether or not you agree with them. One may be offended by support of homosexuality but that doesn’t mean one ought to outwardly hate homosexuals. It is rather insulting and unpleasant to be called various derrogatory terms. I understand that you are against homosexuality but it is a matter of having respect for others who may themselves be homosexual. You may not like that about them but it doesn’t mean that you should treat them poorly. It is the teacher’s job to make the classroom a safe enviroment for all; a place where one feels one can be accepted for who they are. That means if someone using gay as a synonym for stupid, a rather derrogatory thing that happens more than you’d think, the teacher should point out that that is not true and it isn’t okay to discriminate against others. The teacher doesn’t have to support homosexuality, just make ALL of their students comfortable so that they can learn.”
and sm chiping in with:
“Donaldo, what, exactly, do you have against homosexuality?
For one, what harm can come from teachers supporting that sort of lifestyle? It’s not like they’re undermining or not-supporting heterosexuality by doing so. It seems nice to me that LA is trying to promote something you clearly lack: tolerance and respect.
Also, I think that, if a school-age male truly perceived himself as female, it would be completely fine for him to use the women’s room. In that school setting, it would be fairly obvious to all faculty if he were simply saying that because he’s some sort of voyeur, don’t you think so? Really, who can’t spot the sort of guy who’d lie about something like that for the simple reason that he’s a pervert? And what normal, straight male would say that he’d like to be female, if he weren’t? Do you realize the social repercussions of these scenarios? Honestly, it’s not like they’re just giving men a pass to the girls’ room.”
and ddd:
“106- we have come to a point in science if you see yourself as a member of the opposite gender, you can be that. you obviously think homosexuality is bad. if it is not because of your religion, then why is it? homosexuality is not a good thing, just a heterosexuality is not a good thing. why would parents try to keep children “safe” from homosexuality? (other than religion, of course) if their kids are gay, they will simply live a miserable lie for their entire life, because they think that they are unnatural. and how can we be too equal? we are all equal. we are not the same. if political correctness makes us seem the same, however, it is bad. for example, i agree with you about gender. a part of someone’s identity is their gender, and for someone to take that away s wrong. if someone wants to be seen as a member of the opposite gender, they can. but they cannot be seen as the same as everyone else. because they are not.
you can have your own beliefs about “stuff”, as long as they are not hateful. if i thought Taiwanese people were “wrong”, and horrible, i should have the right to think that. that does not mean that it should be a good thing for me to think this, or that anyone shouldn’t try to convince me otherwise. i think you would agree with me on this. why is it so different with homosexuals? saying homosexuality is bad is like saying that Taiwanese people are bad.”
that spark 119 to get mad and that made everyone mad.
intill 89 we were just talking about how bad the us is. (on wtich I say It’s bush not us[pun inteded].)

let us lay off. and I like the rating by the gapas. how about they put it in a huge font like a soplers warning on a harry potter site?

0

152

widdershins (e~a)

in July 17th, 2007 @ 17:15

As humans living in various countrys with newspapers, televisions, radio and the internet surrounding us, we can’t help but notice at least the surface of the current events. Just as you may enjoy discussing books in Books and Reading or Randomness in the random thread, other mb-ers would like a space to discuss events and issues such as abortion and gay rights. Unfortunately, some musers are not able to stay as calm on these issues and explode. There is a careful balance on this thread between respectfully listening to other’s opinions and then stating your own and pointing out the differences and refusing to listen to others and insisting that your own opinion is the only possible one and that everyone must agree with you.

As most of us may see these issues in a newspaper, radio, internet or television, they exist in our worlds anyways. You may be uncomfortable discussing some of these events but they are appropriate to the general age level of MB-ers.

0

153

dark duke of darkness

in July 17th, 2007 @ 17:18

128-i agree completely. however, why everyone has to take offense, and think that this thread needs to be censored/removed/warned about, i do not understand. if you are uncomfortable with “hot topics”, then i would seem to be reasonable not to come to the hot topics thread. or is that just me?

0

154

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 17:19

150-Talking about those things, in mean ways! If these are mature topics, and you think you are mature enough, you should be able to talk about them without being mean!!!

0

155

Alice

in July 17th, 2007 @ 17:46

142- What if people just inserted filler before their comments saying that younger MBers might not want to read their post?

This bothers me. I’m too addicted to MB to stop blogging, so maybe I shouldn’t talk, but it is *this* close to scarring me for life. Yes, really. Or at least for a few months/years. And I don’t even READ the inappropriate comments! Just knowing that I could run across them on any thread, not just HT, is what kept me off the random thread for months.

0

156

Ã–tzi

in July 17th, 2007 @ 17:57

Children, please!
This thread is here for those of us that wish to discuss controversial topics and learn more about opposing viewpoints. These topics tend to include such things as abortion and homosexuality, whether they ought to be issues or not. If you are
a) offended by the subject matter
b) completely inflexible in your beliefs or
c) not willing to argue/ debate a point in a mature manner

Then you don’t have to post here. Personally, I doubt I would have been shocked by a discussion on premarital sex or abortion at the age of ten, and we shouldn’t underestimate younger musers. But then again, I grew up in a household very liberal about what kind of books I could read or what TV I could watch or what music I could listen to. But that is beside the point. My point is this:
If you don’t want to deal with opposing views or can’t be civil, then don’t post on the Hot Topics thread! It’s called that for a reason!

0

157

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 17th, 2007 @ 18:26

156-More than half of what we are mad about is people almost NEVEr post here while even in a remotely calm mood! You are describing this thread as a place where everyone logically talks about issues and never yells! Just look at this thread! It isn’t very much like your description.

Some people consider me one of the nicer people on the blog, but I cannot help people who refuse to be civil. I will now leave this thread entirely and go find friendly people to actually HELP instead of hurting and insulting.

*Leaves but wishes this whole thing would stop*

0

158

biblioRose

in July 17th, 2007 @ 18:45

I don’t mean to offend anybody but If you are afraid of seeing a few words in the recent post bars I think you might have a serious problem. I’m completly serious. Unless you are a very young child (under eight I’d say) it would be best to familiarize yourself with the real world just a little bit, so that when someone posts a few, minute, contreversial words you are able to handle yourself without being uncomfortable or angry. This is a place to discuss our stands on various issues, but when people have strong beliefs a little bit of conlict is neccesary to communicating those beliefs. if it disturbs you so deeply talk to your parents or counselor about it because words are just words.

0

159

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 17th, 2007 @ 18:50

108-I have nothing against homosexuals as a person. I believe that there are probably many homosexuals who are very nice people. But I do not agree with them on being homosexual.
[Donaldo, I snipped this section because it repeats what you’ve already said in comment 106. I also added some spacing between sections to make this large block of text easier to read.–Rebecca]

Also, this rule about supporting homosexuality is causing many problems between schools and parents. No one here seems to get that many parents DON’T want there kids to be homosexual! They try to protect their kids from that kind of stuff! Parents spend a ton of time telling their kids why they shouldn’t be homosexual, and then teachers are saying “Support homosexuality! It is great!” I know I wouldn’t want to hear my kids come home and say, “Hey Dad. Mrs. [insert teacher name] said that homosexuality is fine, but you told me it wasn’t! Are you sure it really is that bad? They told me it was fine, and gave some good examples that showed why it was!” Or what about parents who don’t want their kids to hear about that kind of stuff. They keep stuff about homosexuality and rape and stuff like that away from their kids. And then one day, their kids come home and say, “Hey dad! Mrs[insert name here] talked about this thing called homosexuality, and she said it was good. What is it exactly?” I don’t want to be one of those parents, but if I was, I know I would be pissed.

117-No, they didn’t create MuseBlog for that. You’re right. But they did create Hot Topics for that reason! If you are offended or don’t want to talk about these things, then don’t come here! It is that simple!

128-You are right! I love talking to many people who have completely different views on topics than I do! Many people say that we are not learning anything on the threads, and that we are just arguing. I say that those who say that don’t come to this thread very often! My mind has been changed about subjects (i.e. abortion) because I learned more about it! I have learned so much important facts and have learned moral lessons, like stuff about not using ALL CAPS and multiple !!!!!!! I also learned to stay for the most part calm and rational. I also think that those who don’t like these topics should go away! If you don’t like talking about it, that doesn’t mean we don’t! So quit telling us to stop and LEAVE US ALONE.

140-Maybe you’re right. Parents should be able to know about MuseBlog. My parents know that I post on here and talk about abortion and religion, and they respect me more because of it. Maybe the GAPAs could send an email to new MBer’s parents, telling them precautions they should take about MB, and about the more adult threads. The GAPAs could create a log-in thing, where you have to register on MB before you can post, and that way they can send the email to the parents.

142-NO DON’T! Please, I beg of you! I love the Hot Topics thread!

Let us all agree to disagree.

0

160

Jadestone

in July 17th, 2007 @ 19:00

Ach, people.

I have been calm here in all my posts, have I not? The thing is, all of us will have different opinions, and this is the place to state them and possibly discuss things with others of similar/different opinions. And I, for one, am interested in what other musers think. But I wouldn’t talk about some of this on the random thred, because not everyone does want to discuss things. So I am not going to do it there.
But, there are others who wish to talk about them. And this is the place for it.

Now, what I really wish is that we could for once stop saying that everyone is arguing and being mean to each other. Most of us are not. There have been several differences in opinions, yes, there’s bound to be, but as I was in one of these “arguments” as some of you are refering to them as, I didn’t feel once offended but what someone said. Sometimes I dissagreed with what anothr thought, and other times I thought they were missing facts or there were holes in what they were saying.

People, please don’t get offended if someone has a different opinion than you. Likely they’re not doing it just to spite you and you don’t need to retailiate OR tell them they’re being inconsiderate. Please.

0

161

biblioRose

in July 17th, 2007 @ 19:24

I think, reading over this that we spend more time saying that wouldn’t shouldn’t argue and that this thread is bad than actually argueing/flaming.

0

162

widdershins (e~a)

in July 17th, 2007 @ 20:03

159- I’m not saying that teachers should be saying “Homosexuality is great!” or “Homosexuality is bad!” in their classrooms, that isn’t really important to the students to be influenced one way or another by the teacher’s opinions, I’m saying that the teachers need to protect the students and keep them comfortable. What I was saying was that if, for example, one student said “My parents grounded me for not telling them where I was isn’t that gay?” the teacher ought to point out that gay is not a synonym for stupid and to use it as such is quite derrogatory. I’m not saying that the teachers need to express their personal opinions on homosexuality just that teachers ought to discourage blatent discrimination in their classrooms so that their classrooms are a healty learning enviroment for all of their students.

0

163

Beavo the Online Stalker

in July 17th, 2007 @ 20:51

I have not really participated in the conversations here at HT for a while, but I have been lurking. Peoples, please, you should read your comment over before you click submit. I, as many others, dissagree with Donaldo, but you guys have to ease up off his back! Donaldo, you might be a little bit nicer, but that’s no excuse for yelling. If you can call typing yelling. Flaming, as the GAPAs call it.

Just a thought.

I also aggree with somebody’s idea (who?) to put a little sentence above your post so that people who don’t want to read certain posts don’t have to.

161-What would you rather; everyone being pissed and mean, or a [semi] calm thread?

Like what Jadestone said:

“People, please don’t get offended if someone has a different opinion than you. Likely they’re not doing it just to spite you and you don’t need to retailiate OR tell them they’re being inconsiderate. Please.” ~Jadestone

0

164

Sweet Melpomene

in July 17th, 2007 @ 20:51

154- Gotcha. At first I thought it may have been the subject matter. Glad to know that’s been cleared up. The vast majority of us aren’t really mean. We may use slightly irritated “tones” but that’s about it…

159- Kid, it doesn’t matter what the parents want their kids to be. If they’re homosexual, well, that’s just part of them. No other influences are going to change that part of them. Homosexuality may still be somewhat socially taboo, but that makes it in no way wrong.
I also think it’s better that kids can learn about homosexuality from informed sources, instead of hear-say from their peers. Which they’ll experience eventually. You can’t hide your kids from everything.

Also, if you’re going to be pro- or con- or not-con- something, at least state why.

0

165

Beavo the Online Stalker

in July 17th, 2007 @ 20:57

Oh, and I was reading over Donaldo’s previous post, and I have to complain about parents. I have to. If you do not wish to read a random rant, please skip over this.

ARGH! My parents are like the OPPISITE of everyone elses. They’re all like “MuseBlog is random crappy stuff and you never talk about anything worth while” and when I mention Hot Topics or Global Warming they’re like “Well that’s stuff even High Schoolers wouldn’t understand you little kiddies are just waisting your time with *scoff* oppinions. There is no such thing as an oppnion. There is truth, and false. Oppinions do not exist.” Grrr. Plus, they always catch me on the SSSS or random thread, see the words Random or Sensless, and kick me off for being Random and Sensless. “Work is the best fun there is.” I beg to difffer. “There is no such thing as ‘just fun’.” I beg on my KNEES to differ.

0

166

Beavo the Online Stalker

in July 17th, 2007 @ 20:58

{end rant}

0

167

the man for aeiou

in July 17th, 2007 @ 21:13

156-that whould be heven on earth.

0

168

Jadestone

in July 17th, 2007 @ 22:00

159- Okay, I can understand some parents wanting to shelter their kids, though I personally am strongly against them hiding facts. But as SM said, the teacher’s probably wouldn’t be exaulting homosexuals for class periods, but would be telling people people only used the term as it’s standerd definition and not as an insult.
Besides, they would be exposed to this sort of stuff not from teachers, but mainly from other students as they heard their peers use the terms in an incorrect and derogatory manner.
Teachers would likely have a less opinionated and more factual view, where as many student’s don’t care about correctness and go only with hearsay/what’s popular. How many times have you walked through the hallway and heard ‘gay’ used as an insult? For me, it’s more than once a day. To me, it’s more than irritating, it’s disrespectful.

0

169

Ê‘yviva

in July 17th, 2007 @ 22:22

164- i agree, for the most part. homosexuality is a genetically programmed trait- a person isn’t going to stop being homosexual because their parents tell them too.
also, donaldo, you are clearly against homosexuality. would you please give reaons as too your belief? with out a logical opposing argument, it is impossible to have a debate.

165- poor kitty.
it annoys me to no end when adults think that the opinion of any one more than five years their junior is worthless. when people are not flaming, complaining about flaming, or posting about something they have no knowledge of. i have seen a little bit of theuir thought process and i must say some mbers are more intellegant than many adults.

0

170

agagabagabag

in July 17th, 2007 @ 22:50

159- Protect? Why protect?

0

171

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 18th, 2007 @ 07:19

133: Basically, your parents are religious nuts who don’t want their kid exposed to the cruel truths of the world. Grow up.

It would be extremely easy to turn the homosexuality question into a religious debate. Should I?

Personally I believe that it is an acceptable sexual lifestyle. It’s not a choice, you can’t do anything about your sexual orientation. Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. The only problem with homosexuality are all the incredibly hot lesbians I won’t get to do anything with.
Donaldo, homosexuality is not a choice. Metrosexuality is, but that doesn’t mean anything. Gay people didn’t choose to be gay, and should be allowed to screw whoever they want to.
Also, people have to understand the difference between tolerating something and liking it. I’m a bit of a homophobe, I acknowledge that. I can’t do anything about it. I tolerate homosexuality, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it. Parents and teachers don’t seem to get that. I’m also a bit xenophobic, but I tolerate italians and slavs too.

As for my parents thoughts about museblog, they think I’m wasting my time talking to ignorant religious fanatics and are shocked that if this is the level of intelligent kids in the US, there is still debate about global warming, homosexuality, current politics and evolution.

No censorship! Intelligent people should be able to look at everything critically, take nothing for face value, and be able to sift through all the bullcrap and find the truth (something no one seems to be doing).

Exaggerations of tolerance and political correctness are all too common. Opposite racism, for example. Also all the paedophile priests who weren’t imprisoned because of the respect people have for religious institutions.

Age limits for young kids: No. If a kid’s old able to understand what’s being talked about, he’s able to deal with it. Oh my god, they’re talking about sex! Get little tommy out! Sure. Brilliant. Why is it that movies with nudity and sex jokes get rated R but the latest Bruce Willis action movie with people getting shot up gets a PG13??

Ok, is that it? Seems about. Maybe I’ll post again later.

0

172

Glassboro

in July 18th, 2007 @ 09:47

Oh, great. I lost my lovely long-ish post. I’ll have to summarize it. People who can’t deal with these topics shouldn’t be allowed to post, as they’re also probably too young to carry on an intelligent conversation. For those who are older, just ignore the thread. How would you like it if someone came onto a thread that you liked and said “This thread is inappropriate. Please censor it, GAPAs. :D” While they wouldn’t do that for SSSS or something like that, you get my point. So, if you can’t handle it ignore it. I refuse to put filler in when I post on this thread. If you’re only going to complain stay away from HT. The reason that I don’t post is that I don’t know about the things that are being talked about. Also, I have no problem with reading about sex and the like, it’s posting about it that I have a problem with. And so, I will sadly (for me, at least) be absent from those discussions. Anyway, I think that it’s actually about the same length as the deleted one. So, do you complainers get my point? (Assuming that you read it.) Stay away from the threads that you’re uncomfortable with.
So anyway, let’s get off of the HT thread topic, and onto something else. Preferably one that I can take place in.

0

173

Ê‘yviva

in July 18th, 2007 @ 10:32

171- a) theres a difference between “religious nuts” and (possibly over) protective parents.
b) religion may play a part in how someone, their family and their friends deal with homosexuality, but it has NOTHING to do with a homosexual’s legal standing.
c)why was politics on your parents’ list?

0

174

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 18th, 2007 @ 10:38

173: Overprotectiveness shouldn’t play a part in stopping their kid from reading this stuff.
And religion has a lot to do with homosexuality. According to Christianity and Islam, it’s a sin, and the Christian Coalition in the US constantly lobbies to repress gay rights, and they’re the reason that in many States they still don’t have rights.
And politics was on the list because there are still people who defend Bush.

0

175

the man for aeiou

in July 18th, 2007 @ 11:39

174-look,if your going to post about religon,get the facts right.plese revise your sentence. according to some cristens and some muslims it’s a sin.
174-(again)-how is homosexaulity thoght of by the swiss?

0

176

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 18th, 2007 @ 12:30

160-Exactly!
162-That is true. But the law in the school district says that teachers have to say, “It is good to be homosexual!” and “Don’t worry if someone tells you they are homosexual, because it is a good thing!” What if some kids’ parents don’t want their kids to believe it is a good thing? What will they do about that? The law says that no matter what the teacher’s opinion on the subject, they will HAVE to say that homosexuality is OK.
164-KID? What’s with that? How old do you think I am? Parents CAN influence their kids, just like teachers. They can tell their kids what and what not is right! And actually, parents can. My teacher told me that when she went on the week-long trips for school when she taught 6th grade, a parent didn’t want her kid to go because she didn’t want him to experience naturalistic and environmentalistic ideas. In science, parents don’t have to have their kids learn about the reproductive system. So realize no matter what, your parents are influencing you! Gosh! Remember that Muse issue on epigenetics-how your parents influence you and can change your genes and stuff when you are growing up? Think of it that way! Your parents CAN influence you!
168-SO am I. And so are my parents. I do not believe in sheltering kids from stuff, but for some it is their religion to keep their kids from stuff like homosexuality! And it isn’t supporting in the way of using gay in the right definition-it IS exalting gays as good people, and being gay as being good! There is nothing, however, that says that the teachers have to support heterosexuali9ty, or even talk about it!
169-Epigenetics, remember? And by the way, it ISN’T ALWAYS because of genetics! For many gays, it is their choice! Not because of their genes!
171-Whoa. I agree about what you said to E2MB, but I would have said it in a nicer way. Not all overprotective parents are religious. Not all religious(and by religious, I am sure you mean Christian) parents are overprotective. My parents are religious, and they know I talk about this kind of stuff on this thread, and they are fine with it. Also, on homosexuality-that is very true! (OMG I am agreeing with you so much today!) There are some people who have mental disabilities that makes them gay, but there are still many gays who don’t have that disability, and it is their personal choice. I agree. No censorship! If you can’t handle the topics, GO AWAY. I also agree about tolerating and liking. I do NOT like homosexuality(this does not mean I don’t like homosexuals, I just do not like that choice they made-if they have one). But I a tolerant of it. If someone makes that choice, that’s fine, I can tolerate that. But I might not like them as much. On political correctedness, you are correct! It is far too common! If someone is black, you should be able to describe them as “black.” What else can you call them? Yet at my school, it is considered racist to call someone black!
174-Religion does have a lot to do with homosexuality opinions, but at least for me, it is more than that. It is just a sense of morals and human nature and common sense also. Also, how is homosexuality thought of by the Swiss?

Still no show of hands for my question. I guess no one likes that. See how far political correctedness has gone? It is so annoying. They don’t want to offend some people so much, that they are offending others!

0

177

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 12:40

(176) I think we’d need to know more about the Los Angeles “law.” Is it a directive that the school superintendent has issued, or is it a judge’s ruling in response to a lawsuit? To whom does it apply, and what exactly does it say? Details are important. Where can we find out more about it?

Emmatheduck is from L.A. Maybe she can tell us more about this when she returns to the blog.

0

178

E2MB

in July 18th, 2007 @ 12:50

171 – Look, buster! My parents may be a bunch of religious freaks who don’t want their kid exposed to the awful truths of this world, but you know what? Life was a lot better when I thought people actually married before they had kids, didn’t know about abortion, didn’t know about rape, didn’t hear curse words, didn’t have people several years older than me yelling in my face that my religion is stupid! I’m leaving! GOODBYE!!!

*stomps off*

0

179

widdershins (e~a)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 13:00

176- “Epigenetics, remember? And by the way, it ISN’T ALWAYS because of genetics! For many gays, it is their choice! Not because of their genes!”

I’ve got one question for you. If people choose their sexuality do you remember choosing to be straight? I for one know I didn’t wake up one day and choose my sexuality. It is just a part of who I am, same with everyone. Whether one is gay or straight or bisexual or something else it’s a part of who you are.

177- good question. I heard something about a court case (it may have been in LA) ruling that a girl was wrong to use the phrase “That’s so gay”. I don’t remember hearing anything about any law telling teachers that they must state that homosexuality is good. But, Donaldo, what do you find bad about homosexuality? What exactly offends you about it? To me, I see love between two people. Love does not offend me.

“There are some people who have mental disabilities that makes them gay, but there are still many gays who don’t have that disability, and it is their personal choice.”

Homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. Nor is it a choice. It is a part of who you are.

0

180

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 18th, 2007 @ 13:20

175: No, my facts are straight. Many Christians and Muslims may disagree with their religion to some extent, but according to the Scriptures and the overwhelming interpretations, past and present, Homosexuality is a sin. Don’t try to teach me about debating religion.

178: Life wasn’t better, you just thought it was. And you were hopelessely naive. And you’re a kid being raised by Christian fundamentalists, people that we don’t even consider when discussing sociology. A freak minority that happens to have political power in the US now. Shame.

0

181

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 18th, 2007 @ 13:21

Oh and in Switzerland gay marriage is legal and there is a very low level of homophobia.

0

182

Ebeth The Titleless

in July 18th, 2007 @ 13:40

Fridgey probably shouldn’t insult people he doesn’t know like that, but i’ve been agreeing with what he’s said on this thread. I get the impression (correct me if i’m wrong) that everybody’s used to thinking of him as a troublemaker and an incendiary (right word?) and in some ways he is but look beyond the insults and read what he says. Don’t be so easily offended that you ignore the main points.

And maybe i’ve got everything backwards and messed, but that’s what i think about the thread.

As for homosexuality, i agree with everything e-a says. I have several gay/bi/lesbian friends, and i see nothing wrong with it. And i highly doubt teachers are saying it’s good to be gay, i think they’re just trying to end the use of the word as an insult (which is very definitely NOT COOL, not to mention unmuserish)

Also, as for sheltering kids and all that…you’ve got to find out sometime, why not at a time in your life where you’re willing to let your parents explain it to you instead of when you’re on your own and have no idea what you’re seeing or hearing or whatever? i’m against witholding information in any case, to kids or adults.

And now i’m done. peace

0

183

Shadowkat

in July 18th, 2007 @ 13:45

181-I’m not afraid of gays…I just don’t like them shoving it in my face (granted, not all of them do, but those who do, get on my nerves).

0

184

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 18th, 2007 @ 13:45

I love it when my posts take longer to be moderated. It means the GAPAs don’t consider a few people mature enough to handle aggressive debating.

0

185

Sobriquet

in July 18th, 2007 @ 13:56

Donaldo- You do realize the latest research points to a hormonal, in utero cause for sexual preference?

I’d just like to say here that I have gay, lesbian, and bisexual friends; and that they are perfectly normal thank you very much. At camp I met a couple, a lesbian and a bisexual. Two of the funniest and most brilliant people I have ever had the pleasure to meet. Had they not been open about their relationship, I would never have been able to guess that either of them were any different from the rest of us. Know why? They aren’t.

0

186

Shadowkat

in July 18th, 2007 @ 14:31

184-Only you, my dear…only you.

185-Hey, I have gay friends! And they know I’m straight, and we’re cool. As I said, I have nothing against them.

0

187

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 14:56

Maybe we need separate blogs for middle school and high school kids. Some MBers are almost twice as old as others. I think most of you benefit from knowing one another, but the differences cause strains, too.

0

188

Glassboro

in July 18th, 2007 @ 14:59

Okay, we’re turning onto a topic other than the thread itself. Good.
I don’t think that there’s anything at all wrong with being homosexual or anything. If you do, think about what would happen if the majority of the world was homosexual. (Yes, we’d die out, but forget about that for a bit) You’d be hated for being “straight”, because you were different from everyone else in that aspect of your life. Just think about that.
I’ve been using people as examples for themselves a lot recently, haven’t I?

0

189

Glassboro

in July 18th, 2007 @ 15:02

187- I don’t like that idea, partly because that would destroy the pie wars and partly because that just destroys the idea of the MB, really. But in the case that it did happen would middle school age kids be allowed on the older blog if they felt capable of handling it? Because I feel that I could.

0

190

Alice

in July 18th, 2007 @ 15:09

187- I don’t really like that idea, because I LIKE knowing the people who are older or younger than me, and also because I would be hanging out with the much younger crowd for fear of encountering something bad, and that wouldn’t be much fun. Also, I like the fact that age means nothing at all on MB. I think I can handle this. I’ll just ignore this thread and hope that my sister doesn’t come on the blog. Because if she encounters something inappropriate, then she will talk about it. And that will make it hard for me to ignore.

There. I told you the biggest problem.

0

191

Alice

in July 18th, 2007 @ 15:12

I did like Glassboro’s idea a while back about having two blogs, one for serious stuff, and the other for pie wars, random threads, etc.

0

192

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 18th, 2007 @ 15:16

i don’t know about an age division… Many young kids could profit from the presence of older bloggers. But then again, a seperation would make things easier…

0

193

Penty the Pantsless Communist

in July 18th, 2007 @ 15:43

re: age division: I’d kind of like a separate blog for high schoolers, giving me more liberty to swear, talk about politics, and run around pantsless. It does sound like a lot of work, though, and I’m friends with several middle-school bloggers. Eh, we’ll work something out.

re: homosexuality: It isn’t a choice. Period.

Like FS said, my only problem with it is the annoying tendency for really hot guys to be gay.

0

194

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 18th, 2007 @ 15:56

What about two seperate blogs, but people can move over if they want to? Oh, and make the high school blog in pBBp format. Or whatever it’s called.

0

195

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 16:07

The only problem is that they’d be forever trying to conquer each other…

0

196

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 18th, 2007 @ 16:18

I am just going to ignore this thread. I like having the blog as one whole thing, together, so I think we just need to hope for the best that people can manage themselves. I don’t mind the topics half as much as how people discuss it. If people would argue with some content instead of “my idea is great. PERIOD.” things would be better.

0

197

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 18th, 2007 @ 16:21

For discussions that need to be handled with extra care.

That is what it says at the top. Huh??? This is by far the most violent thread here. So stop it, guys. If you are all big and mature enough to handle the content you should be mature enough to have some table manners.

0

198

widdershins (e~a)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 16:29

197- excuse me but I don’t think I’ve been violent. In fact, I believe I do indeed have table manners here. I’m civil even when something insults me. If I’m not, point out where I’m not civil. I’m trying not to offend people but to voice my opinion and point things out and it is rather hard and trying on me. So please, not everyone on this thread is mean.

0

199

widdershins (e~a)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 17:35

Because I completely agree with the whole post and because it says some things I’ve been wanting to say I’m going to repost most of Axa’s post 38 from the Hot topics 2006.1 thread.

“I know none of you are saying this, but I am sick and tired of people talking about homosexuality like it’s some sort of disease. All religious predispositions aside, what real reason does anyone have to hate gays? Is there any reason? No. There isn’t. And when you step into the territory of calling names,making snide remarks, you’re going down the path to hate crime. Hate for gays is basically racism.

Do you realize that people have been killed, simply because of they’re homosexual? Beaten to death, or worse? No one thinks about that. No one acknowledges that. Instead, you see wrinkled, disgusted faces saying “Ewwww, that’s gross.” or “Gay people are stupid!”

It’s beyond me. It’s simply BEYOND me how any person could in ANY way justify hating someone for their sexual orientation.
Love isn’t something you can define with laws or anything else- it simply is.

What someone does with their life is no one’s business but their own. “

0

200

Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 17:37

(198) I’ve noticed, widdershins. You’ve done an admirable job of both making your point and keeping your composure on a subject about which you clearly have strong convictions. I know that isn’t always an easy thing to do.

Here’s what I find sad. By far, the majority of bloggers on this thread have been courteous even when they disagree, with only a few exceptions, mostly in the past couple of days — yet those exceptions steal all the attention. Possibly that’s their aim. It certainly gives them their power.

0

201

Axa

in July 18th, 2007 @ 18:25

183) People do that? Well, it’s just like the people making out at school, so it’s not necessarily a homosexual thing…some people just like to be really..uh open with affection. XDD

Yeah, e~a think you’re the most mature person here honestly. Also wow I was quoted…I remember writing that.

197) What happens is there is a bit where we get rubbed the wrong way, but it’s all cool now so chill man. -w- If it bothers you though, it’s probably a good idea to stay away.

I don’t know, disagreeing and such like are parts of growing up am I rite.

0

202

widdershins (e~a)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 20:03

200, 201- err… thanks. I was speaking sort of generally, though I said I, indicating that others and I weren’t trying to be violent and mean and were indeed oppressing it.

200- “Here’s what I find sad. By far, the majority of bloggers on this thread have been courteous even when they disagree, with only a few exceptions, mostly in the past couple of days â€” yet those exceptions steal all the attention. Possibly that’s their aim. It certainly gives them their power.”

I agree, though I think the exceptions gain their power from others’ reactions to their rudeness.

0

203

biblioRose

in July 18th, 2007 @ 20:11

200- I know what you mean. Because a few posts are inconsiderate the whole thread is treated like its full of awful rubbish. Also I agree that we shouln’t have two seperate threads.

Oh yes and I also agre that e~a is great, and I admire her for the same reasons Rebecca already said. Yet another good reason not to have an age barrier….

0

204

Ê‘yviva

in July 18th, 2007 @ 21:15

174- my apologies, i misposted. religion should have nothing to do with a homosexual’s legal standing. people should not decide to deny an entire group legal rights (such as marriage… i believe adoption is an issue too, but i am unsure, does any one have more concrete information?) because of their religious convictions. not only is this immoral, as it forces your beliefs down someone elses throught, but unconstitutional. i classify it as making a “law respecting an establishment of religion” because the basis of the law would be religious beliefs.
also, dispite clearly disliking bush, do you like the usa?

re age division: i personally think that would solve very little. when Phoenix first showed me museblog, both of us were in middle school. however, both of us also were able to participate civily and maturly (at least, i really hope my comments could be considered civil and mature. Phoenix for sure was.) in the early hot topics threads. age is not a marker of maturity.

199- i am well aware of the fact that people have been tortured for their sexual orientation. not counting schoolyard bullying, the first example that comes to mind are the nazis.

202- in a sense you are very correct. one person makes a very rude comment and the thread gets cluttered up with people telling us we should all be more polite.

0

205

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 18th, 2007 @ 22:24

177-I believe it is something put on by the school superintendent.
185-I do know that, but there are still many people who are gay and it isn’t because of a birth defect or something. It is THEIR CHOICE. And I have nothing against gays as people-GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD! I have said that multiple times. I am sure there are many gays who are wonderful people!!! But I do not appreciate that decision they made(unless it wasn’t their choice and it was because of genetics). Not all gays have that genetic disability! Did anyone here know that Leonardo da Vinci was almost certainly gay? Yet I still admire him! I think he is a great person, but I do not agree with that decision he made! There is a difference between disliking homosexuality, and disliking homosexual people!
200-I agree 100%

I read an article on the UC Davis website saying that most major scientists do not believe homosexuality is a mental illness. On Wikipedia, I found the same conclusion. They say they are prone to have stuff like anxiety and depression, but that is it.

0

206

Ã–tzi

in July 18th, 2007 @ 22:30

Everyone here, imagine being hated for your sexual orientation, no matter what it is. If you’re straight, imagine being hated because you like the opposite gender. If you’re gay, I’m sure you don’t really have to imagine being hated. My school gave us this excersise, and it really opened my eyes. I tried to imagine what it would be like to be shunned for being straight. The loss of dating comes to mind. Not being allowed to hang around with boyfriends. Not being allowed to even have a boyfriend, at least not publicly.

0

207

widdershins (e~a)

in July 18th, 2007 @ 23:08

205- ahem. Homosexuality isn’t a choice or a disorder. It is part of who one is. Again, I ask you did you choose to be straight? I do not remember choosing my sexual orientation because I didn’t. Sexual orientation is a part of who you are no matter what orientation it is.

0

208

Axa

in July 18th, 2007 @ 23:13

205- I disagree that homosexuality is a choice, because I honestly don’t see the benefit of choosing a path that will cause you to be discriminated against ruthlessly. (No offense meant).

Of course it’s not a mental illness, there’s nothing wrong with it.

0

209

dark duke of darkness

in July 19th, 2007 @ 01:47

205-you say you have nothing against gays, and yet you refer to homosexuality as a disorder? and is there really a difference between disliking homosexuality and disliking homosexual people? could you really not let your beliefs about homosexuality influence your judgment of a homosexual person? also, think rationally about it. i am not sexually attracted to males. i am sexually attracted to females. i could not chose to change that. could you chose to change your sexual orientation? could anyone? you could chose to sleep with someone of your own gender, but that would not make you gay.
205-could anxiety and depression possibly have anything to do with being shunned and hated? anything at all?

0

210

Em

in July 19th, 2007 @ 05:47

Strange that this should be the topic right now, but I guess it was inevitable.

I only recently found out that nobody actually knows what causes homosexuality. I guess there are a lot of people who think it is definitely a disease or definitely genetic.

Personally, I think it’s something that sort of appears during the later stages of puberty, and is based partially on choice, but I can’t really tell. I’m leaning towards agreeing with widdershins, but I think that “who one is” is, on some level, based on choice.

I’m curious, does anyone view bisexuals differently than homosexuals?

0

211

The Invisible Chameleon

in July 19th, 2007 @ 08:04

210 – Well, bi’s generally are attracted to both their own gender and their opposite gender and homo’s are generally attracted to only their own gender. However, this difference isn’t well known, so not everyone distiguishes between them. Personally, I think that there’s a big difference between them.

I learned this from my friend who continually insited that she was not lesbian, but was bisexual. I was quite confused for a while until i asked her, at which point she laughed and kindlyexplained it to poor old me.

0

212

Glassboro

in July 19th, 2007 @ 09:25

206- I said something of the same sort, but can’t find it. Maybe I didn’t post it, or maybe it was just zapped because it would be a double post. I don’t mind, as long as it was said.

0

213

Axa

in July 19th, 2007 @ 10:18

Hmm since what Em said reminded me of this, have you guys heard of the term gravitation when referring to someone’s sexual orientation? Supposedly it’s something like you aren’t attracted to the gender but rather the person alone….I don’t know if it’s real or not though, but I swear I read that somewhere..unless I ‘m confusing my science with something in which case, sorry.

Also, I too think there is a difference between being bi and being homosexual…I mean they are two different things. XD

0

214

biblioRose

in July 19th, 2007 @ 11:38

213- Yes, I know what you mean. Like someone being straight being attracted to a girl/boy, but only that boy/girl. Thats sort of something one of my friends is going through right now…

0

215

Shadowkat

in July 19th, 2007 @ 12:25

187-Hm…yes, that woud be interesting. But what would the new one be called?

0

216

The Invisible Chameleon

in July 19th, 2007 @ 13:05

213 – I don’t know about the term, but I have heard of the actual… need a good word… attraction… to a certain person, rather than a gender on the whole.

0

217

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 19th, 2007 @ 13:25

205: Don’t you believe that your God gave people free will? Yet you think that people shouldn”t be allowed to be openly homosexual? There is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It’s like being mexican, it’s not your choice!

Folks, we’re dealing with someone who is preconditioned by what we here call, “quei coglioni di estrema destra religiosa”. In other words, the Christian Coalition. We have here a person who is against individualism, freedom of choice, liberty of thought, and everything in the American Constitution because of a folk-tale he believes.

[Part of this message was snipped to remove profanity â€” RS]

0

218

Ê‘yviva

in July 19th, 2007 @ 13:47

210- i acknowledge that they are different, but i don’t view them as different. does that make any sence? i guess it’s that i don’t cateragize people by their sexual orientation whether they’re straight/gay/lesbian/bi.

0

219

Ê‘yviva

in July 19th, 2007 @ 14:46

217- from a religious point of view, humans have free will, but in the same way you have the choice in whether or not to cheat on a test. you can choose too, although this is “wrong” or you can choose not too, although this is “right”. same concept applies to god-given free will.

however, this is not a parrallel case. in the homosexual/heterosexual/bisexual it is not a choice.
the follwing is a direct quote from the site of the surgeon general.

“Sexual orientation is usually determined by adolescence, if not earlier (Bell et al, 1981), and there is no valid scientific evidence that sexual orientation can be changed (Haldeman, 1994; APA, 2000). Nonetheless, our culture often stigmatizes homosexual behavior, identity and relationships (Herek, 1993). These anti-homosexual attitudes are associated with psychological distress for homosexual persons and may have a negative impact on mental health, including a greater incidence of depression and suicide, lower self-acceptance and a greater likelihood of hiding sexual orientation (Gonsiorek, 1982; Ross, 1985; Ross, 1990; Greene, 1997; Remafedi, 1998). Although the research is limited, transgendered persons are reported to experience similar problems. In their extreme form, these negative attitudes lead to antigay violence. Averaged over two dozen studies, 80 percent of gay men and lesbians had experienced verbal or physical harassment on the basis of their orientation, 45 percent had been threatened with violence, and 17 percent had experienced a physical attack (Berrill, 1992). ”

translated: since sexual orientation can not be changed, it can not be a choice. most mental problems that seem to be more common in homosexual people is not a side effect of homosexuality but a direct effect of the discriminations and violence against them.

0

220

Duncan_Quagmire

in July 19th, 2007 @ 15:38

217: I don’t come around Museblog much anymore — I used to be around quite a lot near its beginnings — and I’ll admit that I haven’t read all of your posts or anything like that, but here’s what I don’t understand. From what I’ve seen, you usually come onto the blog screaming “liberty of thought” and “freedom of choice” at the top of your lungs… but it is unacceptable to you for someone to make a choice to believe in the God of the Bible or to think in a way that contradicts your views.

0

221

dark duke of darkness

in July 19th, 2007 @ 15:45

219-*applause*

0

222

Ê‘yviva

in July 19th, 2007 @ 15:51

221- *bows*

0

223

the man for aeiou

in July 19th, 2007 @ 16:21

220-your ,like, the only gen 0 person!

0

224

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 19th, 2007 @ 16:29

220: I don’t come in screaming those phrases. I use them in sarcastic ways to show how contradictory many things are. You can’t have complete freedom, society wouldn’t work.
On the other hand, freedom of choice is sometimes necessary to oppose in order to maintain an ethically correct ambient. You can’t tolerate the choice someone might have if it involves killing people, or doing other negative things.

219: But wrong and right are relative. Cheating on a test may be necessary to achieve a greater good, just as killing hitler would have been for the greater good, even though generally killing is bad. Many people say that there is no greater good, it’s just an excuse for people to gain power, but actually there is. It just takes intelligence to find it.

This is relevant to the homosexuality debate: A very good friend of mine just discovered she’s bisexual and is the happiest I’ve seen her in months.

0

225

Axa

in July 19th, 2007 @ 16:36

218) Oh now that I read it that way I feel I should rephrase what i said in my post. I don’t wish ot organzie people like so many jars of jam, but I just meant that they’re a bit different things…yeah.

219) Just to make clear, when the Surgeon General says “determined” I take he means “known/made clear”? As in the person is more aware of what their sexual orientation is.

I agree.

0

226

widdershins (e~a)

in July 19th, 2007 @ 16:37

220, 223- Welcome fellow gen0-er! tmfa, I’m a gen0-er too.

219- thank you for the quote!

0

227

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 19th, 2007 @ 16:43

209-No, I don’t. Others do however. I refer to it as a personal choice.
217-HOW DARE YOU INSULT ME LIKE THAT!!!! YOU AREN’T EVEN FROM THIS COUTNRY SO YOU SHOULDN’T BE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone here who isn’t a Christian is going to Hell, whether they believe it or not. There are no second chances, so FS-I guess you will be tortured in eternity in the fires of Hell! Good riddance!
I AM LEAVING THIS THREAD FOREVER!!!!! NO ONE RESPECTS ME, EVEN THOUGH I RESPECT THEM!!!! YOU PEOPLE NEVER TAKE MY SIDE!!!!! GOOD RIDDANCE!!!! AND DON’T SAY THAT YOU FEEL SORRY FOR ME OR SOMETHING BECAUSE I DON’T RESPECT YOU, BECAUSE I DO!!!! YOU GUYS NEVER LISTEN TO ME OR TAKE MY SIDE!!!!

0

228

Ê‘yviva

in July 19th, 2007 @ 17:29

225- thats the way i understand it.

0

229

Shadowkat

in July 19th, 2007 @ 18:35

Re: Origins of Homosexuality
Someone sometime had a problem. Unless it’s a kind of epigenetic marker or dominant gene, it can’t be genetic, because, if it were, the homosexuals would’ve died out long ago, because they can’t reproduce.

0

230

Rebecca Lasley (Administrator)

in July 19th, 2007 @ 19:16

(229) That is incorrect. Sexual orientation is a separate issue from reproduction. Many gay men and women have children.

0

231

Duncan_Quagmire

in July 19th, 2007 @ 21:19

227: I honestly don’t know how to respond… trust me, you’re not helping our cause any.

0

232

Axa

in July 19th, 2007 @ 21:25

227) Hot Topics is not about taking sides, it’s about discussing things. It happens that maybe no one shares your viewpoint.

229) Imagine that in earlier time when it was even more frowned upon, perhaps they had children as a result of needing to hide it? I’m a bit confused as to if it is genetic or as someone said it happens in the womb at some point…

0

233

the man for aeiou

in July 19th, 2007 @ 21:32

227-I am relly happy about that.
guys,don’t lison to him. he has his brain turned to mush by the conservitives. I belive in the bible,but about half of it I think of as “myth”-stroys that tell something but arn’t true. like the creation or noah’s ark. and jesus never said “nonbelivers are going to hell.” he didn’t even talk about hell!

0

234

Ê‘yviva

in July 19th, 2007 @ 21:48

232- i’m not quite sure scientists understand when sexual orientation is set (i.e. if it is genetic code or a result of the hormones in the mother), however, the generally held opinion is that it is not a choice, but the way some one is. see 219.

233- there is a very good reason jesus never talked about hell. jesus was jewish. thats also the reason he didn’t condem non-believers.

0

235

Duncan_Quagmire

in July 19th, 2007 @ 21:50

233: That’s not quite true. A quick search online gives 12 verses in which Jesus talks about hell. He doesn’t go into specific details often (the closest He comes is probably this parable found in Luke 19 that’s actually quite bizarre), but He *does* talk about it.

0

236

Duncan_Quagmire

in July 19th, 2007 @ 21:52

Oops, my bad. The abovementioned parable is found starting in Luke 16 verse 19.

0

237

Glassboro

in July 19th, 2007 @ 22:15

227- You might not read this, as you are gone, but I do admire you for holding out on your opinions and not leaving for so long, especially with so many people putting you down. I completely disagree with you, but still am amazed at how determined you are to make your point. I hope that you decide to come back sometime.

0

238

E2MB

in July 19th, 2007 @ 22:30

227 – That’s what I said in post 178, and here I am. But I am never going to argue about stuff on Hot Topics again, because it is just a waste of time. I will only come here if people are talking about the censoring of certain topics on MuseBlog and related articles.

187 – YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0

239

Fortune Cell

in July 19th, 2007 @ 22:38

210- I view it as just another sexual orientation. I think the best way to view orientation is to think of it as a line, with gay on one side, and straight on the other. Everyone’s somewhere on that line. Some people are completely straight or completely gay, and some people are in between. For example, my friend [girl] says “Well, I like to mess around with guys, but I know it could never be anything serious.”
However, I have noticed a large influx in the number of bi girls in relation to their popularity, and I just can’t help but feel there’s a connection between the two.

Also: transgenders, asexuals, and de-gayification centers? Thoughts?

0

240

Ê‘yviva, kokopellian pm

in July 19th, 2007 @ 22:44

235-that story does not discuss someone who went to hell for disbelieving. the word is not, in fact hell but “Sheol” which, as far as i can make out comes from the word “shal” meaning error.
well, i guess it is alittle bit about believing. its about believing enough in moses and other prophets to do good and repent.

0

241

Glassboro

in July 19th, 2007 @ 22:45

238- We’ll never get good conversations if people stop trying, will we? Don’t leave, just post without getting angry. (I’m a great one to say that, aren’t I?) And that’s not a great issue for this thread, maybe we could have a new one for it.

0

242

Ê‘yviva

in July 19th, 2007 @ 23:03

239- transgenders: if thats what they want its their business.
asexuals: again, entirly their business
de-gayification centers: if it is the peron’s choice, then it is just that- their choice.

0

243

widdershins (e~a)

in July 19th, 2007 @ 23:11

227- Donaldo, what I have said on this thread is not meant as a personal insult. I understand that we have different beliefs and opinions and, though I disagree strongly with some of them, I respect your opinions. All that I have said is NOT trying to provoke you into anger, but into thought. I wish to have discussions where new ideas can emerge, not arguments where we just bash old statements back and forth with no results.

0

244

Fortune Cell

in July 19th, 2007 @ 23:40

242- perhaps you could go into more detail? Saying it’s someone’s business/choice is all fine and good, but your reasoning behind it or something might be nice.

Also: third gender, pansexuality, intergender, genderqueer, bigender…. I think that covers it.

0

245

agagabagabag

in July 19th, 2007 @ 23:51

Holy snip, l just saw Jesus Camp. Evangelists use the minds of children for baad things. lt’s scary.

0

246

Fortune Cell

in July 20th, 2007 @ 00:32

245- I meant to bring that up. It was just horifying. So disturbing.

0

247

The Invisible Chameleon

in July 20th, 2007 @ 07:44

If there is any here who would like to learn more about transexuals, there a lovely novel for teens that tells the story of a boy becoming a girl and how his family reacts to his decision and how his sister helps him along. It’s called Luna, and I would reccomend it to all teens (not younger children) (teens as in high school age, no matter what you middle schoolers may think). My school librarian recommended it to me because it was up to become Mark Twain nominee.

As for bisexuals, there’s another story about two girls who are discovering their own sexual orientation and the difficulties of being gay. It’s called Annie on My Mind. Really, this is a great book. It was recommended to me by a magazine about girl’s health, in which there was an article about sexual health and orientation. Also for teens.

Sorry I can’t give you any author names, but then there’s this wonderful search engine called Google, I dunno, have you ever heard of it?…

0

248

The Queen (of Penguins, Lime Green and otherwise)

in July 20th, 2007 @ 09:07

205- I completely disagree. I don’t think flaming is necessary, but I believe that gays should have the same rights, they should be respected in equal amounts. Despite what you say, you do have something against gay people. That’s like having something against Chinese. They can’t choose that they were born chinese, can they? Gay is not a question of choosing (well, maybe in some cases it is, and I respect them for their decision), but in accepting who you are.
247-Luna is an amazing book!!

0

249

The Queen (of Penguins, Lime Green and otherwise)

in July 20th, 2007 @ 09:13

Just curious…what are people thinking about the candidates for president? I think that if it comes down to Hilary Clinton and Barrack O’Bama (aaaaaauuuuughhh, excuse my spelling, no disrespect meant), that america is going to vote for an African American man before a woman.

0

250

Shadowkat

in July 20th, 2007 @ 09:56

230-But not necessarily by choice, then. And how can they, unless they do it jut to have the child? And, if they have a partner, how would they decide who gets the child? I know that they do have children, but, for instance, look at Ellen Degeneras’ (sp?) former partner. She left Ellen to go marry a man and have children. Clearly, some part of it is choice.

233-EXCUSE ME??!?!?!?!?! “Brain turned to mush by the conservatives“?!?! What’s that supposed to mean???

0

251

Shadowkat

in July 20th, 2007 @ 09:59

249-Ron Paul. If you’ve never heard of him, it’s because the media won’t cover him. Although he’s in the running to be the next Republican candidate for President, he wasn’t invited to the Iowa Republican debate. On the other hand, that same day, just one building over, he had his own rally, where he gave a speech, and everything. And he had more people there than there were at the debate. And even though I’m not Republican (I’m a Libertarian), I support Ron Paul, fully and completely. I want him to win the Presidential election…assuming he doesn’t get assassinated, first.

0

252

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 20th, 2007 @ 10:39

227: Wishing eternal damnation on my soul isn’t very respectful. Oh and btw, if I do end up going to hell, hey, I’m friends with the devil. I’ll have fun!

Jesus Camp was insane. Pretty funny though. “Harry Potter is evil!” *snigger*

0

253

Jadestone

in July 20th, 2007 @ 11:00

249- Well, I agree with more of what Obama thinks, and I don’t agree with as much as HC, so it’s not because she’s a girl that I wouldn’t vote for her. If I could vote…

251- What are his basic takes on things? I havn’t heard about him, but I wouldn’t know if it’s because of the media or not because I don’t pay extra attention to it.

0

254

Axa

in July 20th, 2007 @ 11:56

238- Again, I don’t see the problem. Censoring is not needed. Just becasue it’s a bit mature doesn’t mean it should be trampled into the ground.

And also…how many times must I say the objective is not arguing? It happens once in a while but not all the time. Really.

239- On the subject of places that “De-gay” in so many words: complete rubbish. But it’s also very sad…I mean I don’t want to think about the regimen they have to go about something like that. And people who go there must either be so deep in denile they’re miserable or are being forced by family/etc who are unaccepting…just awful. Wasn’t there a minister who was found to be gay, and he said he attended a clinic like that so now he wasn’t?

245- I heard that was a creepy movie, but I would like to say that one shouldn’t judge all Christians on the acts of select sects of it. Since there’s a lot of that.

0

255

Fortune Cell

in July 20th, 2007 @ 13:21

I was watching Tyra Banks [ha. ha. ha.] and she had some “formerly gay” men on. And they said, rather than completely abandoning homosexuality, they embraced heterosexuality. Does that make any sense? They were more bisexual or something.

0

256

Donaldo the supercoolio awesome nerd

in July 20th, 2007 @ 13:58

I am back not to argue but to say one thing to FS.

Harry Potter IS NOT evil! I think Harry Potter is the best! He BETTER NOT die in the 7th book! Other than that, GOODBYE!

0

257

Shadowkat

in July 20th, 2007 @ 14:14

253-Hm…I’m sending a scanned image that should explain a few things. GAPA’s, when you get it (assuming you do), please post it here, ok? If that’s alright.

0

258

widdershins (e~a)

in July 20th, 2007 @ 14:27

247- I’ve read Annie On My Mind. Yes, it is a good book and a cute love story. It is quite touching. And the author is Nancy Garden.

On bisexuality and sexuality in general, when one is born one does not really think about one’s romantic attractions. One does not choose it but yet one does not yet know it until one thinks about it. Eventually, around puberty, one discovers ones romantic interest in other people. Bisexuals just discover that they are interested in both genders.

0

259

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 20th, 2007 @ 14:30

256: But teh books promote teh pagan valuz and r not gud for teh kristian leifschteil!!!1!11!!!

0

260

E2MB

in July 20th, 2007 @ 15:19

259 – I’m amazed that you’re constantly trying to make new enemies, or make the enemies you already have hate you even more.

0

261

dark duke of darkness

in July 20th, 2007 @ 15:54

227-very respectful, that was. oh, sorry, i can’t talk right now, i’m of to burn in hell! *whistles*
251-ron paul was on the colbert report. it was really funny.
256-he doesn’t. just a (slightly cruel) response to that thing about hell. and i’ve read dealthly hallows so i know.
259-rofl.

0

262

Ê‘yviva

in July 20th, 2007 @ 16:29

re harry potter: there is nothing wrong with hp. no one really thinks there is. it was just a sarcastic comment. 8pies everyone*

re hell: anyone who thinks they can condem another to hell has an overinflated ego. anyone who insults somone else’s beliefs has an over ingflated ego.*pies everybody many, many, many times*

re sexuality: its their business. if some one wants to be homosexual, let them, if some wants to be heterosexual, let them. if some one wants to be asexual, let them. its called freedom of choice. i ha;ppen to agree with the pure conservative view on this that the government should stay out of the bedroom. ansd so should the next dor neighbors.

re degayification centers: no one should be forced to go by friends/family/etc. because it infrignges on their right to choose how they live their life. however, if some one really and truly wants to go, then they have the right to seek to change their life style.

GENERAL REQUEST: would people please go and read a sampling of the first few hot topics threads. you will noticce major fdfferences in how they were conducted.

i appologize to anyone if this seemed a little harsh, but i’ve reached the end of my tether. and i thought it was bad when people discussed middle eastern politics without knowing the difference between lebanon and iran!

0

263

Duncan_Quagmire

in July 20th, 2007 @ 16:50

259: Congratulations! That was just as unnecessary as Donaldo’s post 227.

0

264

Sweet Melpomene

in July 20th, 2007 @ 17:52

Re: Jesus Camp: I just watched the trailer and did one of these:
:- O
It was so scary.

0

265

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 21st, 2007 @ 07:20

Shadowkat sent this poster from Ron Paul’s presidential campaign:

0

266

Piggy

in July 21st, 2007 @ 09:07

15-If you believe you won’t go to heaven, you must believe in it. That’s simple logic.

0

267

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 21st, 2007 @ 09:26

(266) Is it? I believe I won’t go to Atlantis, Rivendell, or Hogwarts.

0

268

Ebeth The Titleless

in July 21st, 2007 @ 11:08

252-haha, jesus camp. my friend went there. she’s an atheist but her parents are uber-catholics so they forced her to go. she came back with some really funny stories…anyway…

227-donaldo…drama much?

really people, you shouldn’t be insulting each other but if people must then why take it so seriously? you don’t have to

0

269

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in July 21st, 2007 @ 11:19

It’s just one of the ways in which the blog resembles a family.

You know how, when you grow up with someone, you know exactly which buttons to push to make that person really, really mad? And sometimes, even though you know you shouldn’t, something makes you want to push those buttons and get that response? So you do, and you get the explosion you expected, and everything is a mess, and your parents step in, and they’re angry too. And amid the screaming and smoldering debris you think to yourself with a grim satisfaction, “Ha. Works every time.”

I think something like that is going on here. The participants never seem to get tired of the game, but it’s a real bore for the rest of us (as I’m sure it is for parents).

Don’t ask how I know all this.

0

270

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 21st, 2007 @ 13:58

269: With the exception that my comments are insightful and valid.

0

271

the man for aeiou

in July 22nd, 2007 @ 16:41

269-how do you know this?

0

272

Jadestone

in July 22nd, 2007 @ 21:49

227- It’s not nessicarily because we don’t respect you, but more because we don’t agree with what you’re saying. This is not about choosing sides, but giving an opinion.

269- I don’t suppose you have any siblings…

Jesus Camp? Not sure I want to know.

Harry potter: Some Christians do think that it says people should be witches and worship the devil. They have obviously never read the books.

0

273

dark duke of darkness

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 04:46

265-wow….maybe people would be stupid enough to vote for him. not to offend shadowkat’s intelligence. taxes are necessary.

0

274

dark duke of darkness

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 04:48

sorry for the double post, but he also seems anti-immigrant, and seems to think america is more important than the rest of the world(abolishing the UN, WTO etc.) threaten american independence? give me a break.

0

275

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 06:50

OMG, Jusus Camp- *cries* The poor kids who are being mentally and emotionally messed up there, thinking that Satan is out to get them. Themovie was very sad. When the mother was homeschooling her boy, and the boy asked something like “So science doesn’t really matter anyway?” and the mom said, “that’s right,”, I nearly cried.

270- *giggles* Oh wait, you’re being seroius. Some of the stuff you say is “insightful and valid” but you have a way of getting people’s defences built up. You want to give people the truth so they candecide for themselves. yes, I know, and so do plenty of other people, that god is a fairy tale, the world’s messed up, and global warming will kill all the animals, but you don’t have to slit people’s online throats.

Oh, I got into an argument with a friend the other day, because for some stupid reason he called me a chic, which is probably my pet peeve. Do any other girls find that offensive? *Needs to know in case she needs to go apologize*

0

276

Axa

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 10:32

265) Don’t like how he’s backed by “Gun Owners of America”
Like dark duke of darkness said, opposing the UN seems like a bad idea too.

275) If you don’t appreciate being referred to as such, then no need to apologize. Unless you ripped out his throat over it or something.

0

277

Sweet Melpomene

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 13:16

269- *presses hands together and bows*

275- I used to find that offensive. *shrugs* I don’t really notice anymore.

0

278

Shadowkat

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 18:49

265-Thank you for posting it!

273-Well, I didn’t say everyone would…you’re a liberal, you wouldn’t like him. (No offense, just stating the facts.) And unlawful taxes are not necessary.

274-That was slightly unclear…what did you mean to say?

276-Why not? If everyone owned a gun, the crime rate would, most likely, go down. Obviously, the people who end up being thieves, murderers, and whatnot, are getting guns, somehow. They’re taking advantage of the fact that not many other people have them. If a potential criminal was thinking of robbing a bank, he might think twice about doing so if it could be a 10-1 fair fight.

0

279

Axa

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 20:42

278) It’s not a fact that liberal can’t like Conservative candidates. Unfortunately some people vote based only on party.

This is more personal opinion than anything that can be backed by facts, but guns represent nothing but death to me…yes they provide protection. But a “fair fight?” A warring state where whoever has the bigger gun doesn’t sound ideal to me. I don’t trust people. Someone who gets made and has a gun is liable to not think and grab it. God forbid I owned a gun….

Of course the matter isn’t if everyone had guns, it’s that it seems like it would be better if he were backed by something more friendly sounding. Again this is personal opinion because I loathe guns.

0

280

Fortune Cell

in July 23rd, 2007 @ 23:33

275- I don’t really mind. I call other girls chicks, sometimes. Doesn’t really bother me, I don’t even notice when people call me that.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like guns…but if they outlawed them, the people who you least want to have guns will, and the people who need them the most won’t.

0

281

dark duke of darkness

in July 24th, 2007 @ 03:29

278-what makes them unlawful?
“276-Why not? If everyone owned a gun, the crime rate would, most likely, go down. Obviously, the people who end up being thieves, murderers, and whatnot, are getting guns, somehow. They’re taking advantage of the fact that not many other people have them. If a potential criminal was thinking of robbing a bank, he might think twice about doing so if it could be a 10-1 fair fight.”
would you really feel safer if while walking down the street everyone had a gun? i certainly wouldn’t. it seems a bit odd to me that you would trust the average person to judge who they want to shoot. if someone walks into a bank wanting to rob it, and everyone in the bank pulls out their own gun and shoots said person, is that a good thing? what if someone who owns a gun(because everyone does) walks into a bank and starts cleaning it? some psychotic old man sees a guy walking into the bank with a gun and shoots him. is this a good thing? is it better for a criminal not to have a gun and try to rob a bank without one, or for a criminal to have a gun, rob a bank with it, and have everyone in the bank have one too so that they can shoot him or her?
“274-That was slightly unclearâ€¦what did you mean to say?”
the UN, WTO etc are world organizations that support peace and fairness for the entire world. Ron Paul doesn’t like them because they “threaten american independence”. that is, they do not allow america to control everything. and he’s anti-immigrant “end birthright citezenship for illegal aliens”. his family were immigrants, and they were probably discriminated against in the same way that our imigrants are today. He just thinks he’s special, in the same way that the people who probably disfcriminated against his family. (i only say rpobably because i do not know where exaclty hsi family emigrated from)

0

282

Red-tailed HAWK

in July 24th, 2007 @ 07:54

Just thought I’d jump in here…

280-It has done very well in other countries…It can be done…

0

283

dark duke of darkness

in July 24th, 2007 @ 09:35

282-ayup. google doesnt seem to be telling me exactly which countries they are banned in, but there are lots of them, i can tell you that.
280-who needs them most?

0

284

Shadowkat

in July 24th, 2007 @ 10:35

281-Taxes: The income tax, for example, has been misapplied for about 75 years. Look it up…ergh, you can’t, because the GAPA’s won’t let you go to my dad’s site…well, maybe they’ll let this through [Sorry, it’s still basically a link to your dad’s site. Feel free to summarize the main points. –Admin.] It’s an introduction to the history of the income tax. Check it out, if you can.
Guns: Yes, I would. What potential criminal is going to be stupid enough to pull a gun on someone in a public place if everyone in that place might have a gun? And I never said they would shoot him/her, simply that the threat would be there.
Foreign Policy-ish: No, they want to control America, long with everyone else, in an attempt to enforce peace and liberty. How backwards is that? Suppress the people long enough, and you’ll get a revolution.
Immigration: I don’t know much about this subject, and so can’t make an informed opinion on it, but it looks to me like Ron Paul is simply trying to take things back to the way they were before.

0

285

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 24th, 2007 @ 10:46

They should shut down the factories that make handguns, because they are made for the malicous purpose of killing people. Deer rifles and stuff should be allowed, but there’s no need for people to run around pretending they’re the Terminator. However, guns shouldn’t be outlawed, it’ll bring gun violence up because then people who have to break the law to get a gun are the people who won’t mind breaking the law in crueler ways….

0

286

Glassboro

in July 24th, 2007 @ 11:09

285- Oh, so you think that humans are the only ones that matter, and deer and other non-human animals can just be killed for sport? Sorry to be making my point like this, because I don’t like other people doing it *coughFScough*, so I’m really sorry for bringing this arguing tone onto HT again. I’ll stop now. Really.

0

287

Axa

in July 24th, 2007 @ 12:54

283) Guns are banned in Japan, and even policemen need special permits to have them, I believe. Not sure about other countries though.

284) It still stands that there are just some people who are not safe when they have guns. Yes, there are certainly people who would use them only in self defense, but continuing with this imagined scenario: since he no longer has the upper hand, the criminal would resort of worse and worse methods until he did. More powerful gun, etc.

Outlawing guns wouldn’t work quite yet in this country, though. The fact that we’ve been allowed guns for the duration of our existence as a country is a hard thing to overcome.

0

288

Glassboro

in July 24th, 2007 @ 13:13

Yes, it is hard to overcome, but it has to be changed before people get too used to it, which would just make it harder.

0

289

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 24th, 2007 @ 13:39

Whenever someone says they’re going to lower taxes, everyone’s happy. No one stops to think. Taxes are necessary. In Europe we have higher taxes because our hospitals, schools, and public services in general a lot better than those in countries with lower taxes. Taxes are necessary for the economy and for the developement of the country. Ron Paul is just a politician, and just like all the others, a bloody sleazy opportunist.

0

290

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 24th, 2007 @ 13:45

286- Absolutly not. In some cases, I’d say a human was more deserving of a bullet wound than a dog, because dogs didn’t create bullets. However, deer hunting is a major business, and its extremely rich. If we first shut down factories that make handguns, we can slowly begin to shut down the hunting gun factories. If we just say, ok, no more deer rifles, pretty soon, it wouldn’t be a pretty sight. It’s easier to say that hand guns are immoral than i is to say that bird shot is. *sighs*

0

291

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 24th, 2007 @ 14:02

Screw guns. All they do is kill dishonourably. If you really want to prove yourself by killing someone, you should be able to do it close up. You have to smell death, look at it in the face, and still be able to kill. Trust me, if all wars were fought with melee weapons, there’d be a lot fewer soldiers.

0

292

Axa

in July 24th, 2007 @ 14:04

289- I recently saw Sicko and I must agree that (from what I could gahter) Europe does indeed have better hospitals. Everyon said they just paid for it through taxes and not riduclous medical plans, so as far as I can tell, that’s a good idea.

0

293

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 24th, 2007 @ 15:18

291- Peoplewho are good at first shooter video games make the best soldiers.

292- The medical system is very good. However, if you wanted to get plastic surgery, you pay it out of your pocket, but that’s a good thing.

0

294

yesterday's_kinked_moose

in July 24th, 2007 @ 17:34

291: I agree. Although soldiers are not necessarily soldiers by choice. Sometimes they get drafted. I don’t think drafts are usually a good thing, but you could end up with a lot of severely emotionally scarred vets.

0

295

Pyro

in July 24th, 2007 @ 18:13

293-Why? Because they’re desensitized to violence? Because they have good aim? They wouldn’t necessarily make the best soldiers. I’m sure there’s more to being a soldier than shooting a gun.

289-Very true.

0

296

Fortune Cell

in July 24th, 2007 @ 21:25

283- People in a position where they have to protect themselves or others.

0

297

Glassboro

in July 24th, 2007 @ 21:40

293- Please don’t bring up the subject of video games again. That was discussed after VA Tech, and will just cause more unnecessary argument.
294- Could you explain that better, please?
291- Maybe. Although it would be better to eliminate them completely… Of course, that was a pointless thing to say as everyone here already knows that.

0

298

Ebeth The Titleless

in July 24th, 2007 @ 21:47

265-Haha, why does that sound so familiar?

275-my granddad calls nana chick. occasionally me too, when he’s not calling me a twerp i don’t find it offensive though. although my friends generally use it sarcastically. (and then there’s celia’s “heeey giirrl!!” which she mostly uses on guys, which cracks me up)

289-thank you! if we expect the government to do all these things for us, shouldn’t we help them pay for it? On the other hand, i don’t know exactly how all our taxes are used, but i have a feeling most of them are misspent. If only people weren’t stupid and didn’t spend money on stupid things *coughIRAQcough*

ron paul? seems all right, if he can do half the stuff he says he can…i’m not terribly fond of his illegal immigrant deal though. I still don’t really see why people have such issues with accepting them as valuable members of society…if, for example, the child of an illegal immigrant were to be the best person in the US to run for prez, i would consider that a good thing that they were here.

0

299

Shadowkat

in July 25th, 2007 @ 14:07

284-I told him you guys wouldn’t let it through, but he said, “Well try anyway!”…sorry about the trouble.

289-“Ron Paul is just a politician”…who has been the Texas-Representing member of the U.S. Congress for 20 years straight. He keeps his promises…or he’s obviously doing something right.

291-Well, that’s a personal choice, love, but the criminals are using guns.

292-Alright, fine, but not everyone should be forced to pay for something they might not want/use. It’s like forcing someone to give to charity. That’s not a bad thing, but is it not stealing if you take someone’s money from them, even if you give it to a good cause?

297-Something as powerful as a gun will not easily be destroyed. It’s already been invented, and anyone who knows how a gun works, and had the right materials, would be able to make one (and use it) quite easily. Guns wouldn’t be banned, they’d just become a hot item on the black market.

298-Why does what sound so familiar?

0

300

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 25th, 2007 @ 14:39

299:
20 years in the same position shows me he’s got the right connections in high places and lots of money. And since when do we trust texan politicians anyway? Illegal immigrants are necessary for the US too.

If there where much stricter gun laws, then the criminals would have less guns. And if the US had a decent police system, and only they had guns, the populace wouldn’t need to “take our protection into our own hands”, as the pro gun people think necessary.

0

301

Sweet Melpomene

in July 25th, 2007 @ 21:16

There is a certain art to swordfighting. But also to sniping, which can be done with guns as well as other ranged weaponry. Come to think of it, most melee fighting can be considered artful.

0

302

Sobriquet

in July 25th, 2007 @ 22:10

299- RE universal medical coverage: Some percentage of taxes are used to fund programs the people paying for them aren’t going to use. You’re not proposing to remove funding from things like unemployment insurance or homeless shelters? Why not health insurance?

0

303

Sweet Melpomene

in July 26th, 2007 @ 10:34

299- I think she’s making a joke about Ron Paul’s campaign platform.

0

304

Shadowkat

in July 26th, 2007 @ 10:51

300-Actually, he only just passed John McCain in campaign money. And we do because not everyone is the same, no matter where they’re from. Do you have any idea how many people disagree with me? And we live in the same county!
Well, there were some pretty strict alcohol laws, and look what came of those: bootleggers and speakeasies. Just because some government bans something, it’s not going to disappear. Supply and demand, my friend, is all that governs in a capitalism-based society.

302-Well, yeah, if someone can’t afford health insurance, should I be paying for them to have it, even if I don’t want to do so? It’s my property, my wealth, and my right to do what I want with it.

0

305

Jadestone

in July 26th, 2007 @ 11:16

289- Yes! Actually, I have thought of that. Taxes are necessary, and everyone complains that their school/hospital/ect is not getting enough funding, but complain even more when the taxes that make this possible go up. It’s impossible.

294- That is a good point.

300- The police can’t do everythng though.
One of my friends wants to get a gun and permit to carry because she’s planning to live in the city, and she’s not very good at fighting and stuff. Personally, I think pepper spray is much more effective.

0

306

Axa

in July 26th, 2007 @ 11:33

Oooh on the topic of pepper sprat and related items, I saw this…man I think it was 975,000 volt stun gun for sale when we went up to the mountains a few days ago. I’d be afraid of stunning myself. But I think it’d be good to have…pepper spray too, if you were in a bad area. Guns cause more noise and what not.

Personally think it would be more effective to instead go after why we need guns and fix that and then do something about the actual guns. Of course people do have the right to protect themselves, but it’s something that is so abused….we need better laws.

0

307

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 26th, 2007 @ 15:36

295- Because it’s easier to get these videogame soldiers into the mentality that it’s all just a game, that the lives they take aren’t really people. There’s a lot more than just shooting a gun. Besides, it was the results of a study, not just my opinion.

294- I support the draft. *gasp, gasp* It’s because, when there’s not a draft, people don’t really think about the war unless someone they know signed up for it. When there’s a draft, history shows there a huge reaction, and there’s tons of protests and people get into the mentality that there’s a war going on, not a giant chess game.

304- “302-Well, yeah, if someone can’t afford health insurance, should I be paying for them to have it, even if I don’t want to do so? It’s my property, my wealth, and my right to do what I want with it.” So you are goin to let that person die? It will only cost you a few pennies if everyone in the country gives a few pennies, and then that little girl who can’t afford medicle treatment can get chemotheropy and won’t die of cancer. It’s not charity, it’s a responsibility that we have to take care of each other.

0

308

the man for aeiou

in July 26th, 2007 @ 20:42

304-well,if yoy get cancer don’t go looking for money. it’s people’s wealth and the property.if you don’t give some,ou don’t get some.

0

309

Sweet Melpomene

in July 26th, 2007 @ 21:06

302- So what? So long as there’s a good chance of recovery and return to society and its benefit, why not? They’re human, too.

305- Yeah, I think pepper spray would be better. Because if she’s not proficient with the gun, of what use would it be? There’s a much larger margin for error with pepper spray.

0

310

Fortune Cell

in July 26th, 2007 @ 21:46

308- So, what? We just let the poor die? Nice way to think.

309- Plus, guns at short range can be terribly ineffective.

Tasers are where it’s at!
Idk… my friend got tasered once, cus she was running away from a cop. It’s better than being shot, way I look at it.

0

311

Glassboro

in July 26th, 2007 @ 22:28

Penty said that she’d come here again on LJ. Oh well, she’s probably busy.

0

312

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 27th, 2007 @ 08:22

310- People say getting Tasered is the worst hurt they’ve ever felt. I think it’s cruel and unusual punishment. And wasn’t there that really old guy who got tasered and had heart failure and died? He wasn’t really old, maybe sixty… *shrugs* *can’t remeber where she read about the guy in the first place*

0

313

Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows

in July 27th, 2007 @ 15:35

Hey. I know I said I wouldn’t come back, but I have just for this post.

St. Augustine’s Just-War Theory is probably the most influential viewpoint on war and peace ethics. Here it is:

1.Jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place:
-Last resort
-Just cause
-right intention
-proper authority and public declaration
-probability of success
-macroproportionality:weighing the universal goods expected to come from the war against the universal evils
Just-war theory inisists all requirements must be fulfilled for a particular declaration of war to be justified
2.Jus in bello, concerning the conduct when in war, after it has begun:
-Discrimination: Soldiers are only allowed to target those “engaged in harm.”
-Microproportionality: soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek
-No means mala in se: soldiers may not use methods or weapons that are “evil in themselves”(e.g. mass rape, torture, genocide, etc.)

3. Jus pos bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war:
-Just cause for termination
-Right intention
-Public declaration and legitimate authority
-Discrimination-e.g., between police, government officials, general population
-Proportionality-the terms of peace must be proportional to the vindication

In my opinion, we met all the requirements for going to war. I do not think we met all the requirements for conduct during war( bombings and torture) but I believe that Bush really did not know that the Iraqi citizens were being tortured, and we have used bombs before, just like most other countries have. We still have not met all the requirements for coming out of war. For one, legitimate authority means that Bush can decide if we come out of war or not. Secondly, until we have that discrimination between terrorists, police, government officials, and regular people, we cannot withdraw. We have still not achieved that.

0

314

Shadowkat

in July 27th, 2007 @ 16:53

307-And someone can choose whether or not to give that money. I probably would donate, if I had the money to do so, but that’s my choice. My property, my choice. That’s how it goes.

308-Ok, fine. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing to donate to charity!!! I’m simply saying that no one should have their money taken from them, to have something done that they might not want done. I am NOT heartless…simply freedom-oriented.

I’ll answer more later, but I’ve g2g. Byze.

0

315

Shadowkat

in July 28th, 2007 @ 09:36

313-What discrimination? I’m not sure I quite know what you’re talking about.

0

316

Axa

in July 28th, 2007 @ 19:39

Waaooo okay I have a question for everyone. I was reading a bit moer about Ron Paul in The Week and he does seem to have some good ideas. I personally think that pamphlet didn’t put it too well, but anyway. Is the census something you think we need? It said something in th article about him wanting to remove it as a violation of privacy. As someone who is “persons reporting two or more races” I sort of don’t like it. I mean why do we need to know the ethnicity of every man woman and child? If it’s to count how many people and things like that, but I never liked having to classify myself.

0

317

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 29th, 2007 @ 10:47

316- I think we should take race off the census, BUT WE NEED THE CENSUS. Otherwise, we have no idea how many people there are in a country, so all of a sudden we have overpopulation and no one knows. Also, it’s extremely valuable to anthropologists and archeologists.

0

318

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 29th, 2007 @ 11:56

It’s wonderful how, as the diverse ethnicity in america grew, the senate grew to adapt, going from 25 white guys in 1789 to… well, to… a lot more white people. Except for Obama.

0

319

Shadowkat

in July 29th, 2007 @ 13:07

317-True, the census is useful for record-keeping purposes, but no one should need to know anything more than how many people there are. Unless, of course, one is trying to make a percentage chart of how many of each race there are…then you’d need to know race. It is quite the touchy subject.

0

320

dark duke of darkness

in July 29th, 2007 @ 14:34

304-if someone can’t afford health insurance, and society has enough money to provide it to them, then yes, it should. not you personally, society as a whole.
305-that’s ridiculous. i live in the city, noones allowed to have a gun, i would not feel safer in the least by having one.
307-on health insurance, yep, on the draft:well yes, but the war is just bad. the draft is a result of the war getting too big. another reason the draft is good (well, a premenant one) ios that the people in the army now are almost all poor people who have to do it to make money. rich and middle class people do not join the army, because the army is neither good nor fun. i don’t want to join the army, and i won’t, because i dont’t have to. poor people do, because it is the best way to make money.
314-you might donate to some poor person who has cancer, idf he asked you to. but s/he wouln’t. if everyone gives a bit of money, there are many things that become better, to everyone’s benefit.
319-i don’t quite see anything wrong with the census. people can put any of the above for race, gender etc. its useful, and not really a big deal.
On Income Tax. it’s great. thr rich are taxed more than the poor, because they can afford it and that wayu the weath is balanced. charity is pretty much meaningless. nothing can really get done, and rich people with whom we are so impressed, they give millions! how come they have millions? and after thety give their millions it doesnt make any difference on their lifestyle, or on society as a whole, only on those few people they want it to. to make themselves feel better.
313-that called regime change war. there are lots of regimes i would like to have changed, that does not mean that it’s okay to atttack all of them.
about tasers and stuff. i dont really see why anyone has to carry self defense stuff anyway. one simply has to be sinseible. i live in the city, i walk everyehere, noone i know has ever been mugged. if you are mugged, is that really a big enough deal to pull out a gun/knife/taser/mace? meh.

0

321

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 29th, 2007 @ 15:36

In Switzerland, it’s illegal not to have health insurance, and if you can’t pay it, the government subsidizes.

0

322

Sweet Melpomene

in July 29th, 2007 @ 18:13

321- That’s rather weird.

Kinda like it’s weird that you can’t legally drive a vehicle without auto insurance on it here.

0

323

Ã–tzi

in July 29th, 2007 @ 21:01

I think Ron Paul’s disadvantages outweigh his benefits. “Birthright” citizenship is exactly that- a birthright. Let’s not undo the constitution, hm? Also, tax cuts are not good. We need to tax people proportionate to thier income, otherwise we will have the very rich, the very poor, and one bankrupt government. And how, exactly, does the UN threaten American Independence?

He won’t win, anyhow.

0

324

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 30th, 2007 @ 03:55

I’ve always thought that a foreigner shuldn’t be able to run for president rule unfair. I lived in the US since I was seven, and I am not able to run for president. Maybe you have to live in thge country fifty years or something. But then again, if it keeps arnold Schwarzanegger out of ofice, it’s all right by me.

0

325

Shadowkat

in July 30th, 2007 @ 15:43

320-See, your problem is that you want to make everything fair. That’s all well and good, but is it fair to steal? Because that’s what making everyone equal (in an economic way) is.

323-Well, don’t be so optimistic. Why do we need to tax people on their own hard-earned money? How does anyone but the owner of the property/wealth have any right to choose what’s done with that property/wealth?

0

326

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 30th, 2007 @ 16:08

Actually Schwarzenegger isn’t a bad governor. Apart from that thing involving not pardoning prisoners with the death sentence…

0

327

Axa

in July 30th, 2007 @ 17:03

Well on the race thing with the census I feel like it’s a contradiction of sorts. If it really doesn’t matter what we are then why do they need to know? For polls that say “78% of this race say such and such”? People think they’re spreading a message of equality but we still have stuff like that. Ideally it shouldn’t matter what race we are derived from but, in the case of the USA, our country.

But because the USA is made of people essentially not naturally of the land (with the exception of the much abused Native Americans) people will always still have pride for their mother country and therefore we can never truly take away the classifying in our minds.

0

328

Sobriquet

in July 30th, 2007 @ 17:18

325- Because the government needs money to fund everything it does. And believe it or not, we need politicians and they need to be paid. You can dislike taxes, but you can’t say they aren’t necessary. I’m sorry, but you seem to believe that everyone in this world is an altruistic person who would help those in need even if they didn’t have to. It’s just not true. Despite of this, we simply can’t let these people die. I’m surprised that someone who so values the life of an embryo (don’t get started, people) would think it appropriate that someone who is misfortunate enough to have a tumor not get assistance to pay their medical bills or someone who is homeless not get help to once again become a productive member of society. Yes, people should be able to decide what to spend their money on. Think of taxes as paying for the opportunity to live in a more or less democratic and free society.

0

329

Shadowkat

in July 30th, 2007 @ 21:22

328-I almost started the abortion discussion just to be difficult, but I suppose I won’t…lol. Anyway, certain legitimate, Constitutional taxes are fine, but the gov’t has gotten way out of hand, and has to be taken down a few (or a hundred) notches. The gov’t has no business being involved in school, medical-stuff, and any number of things. The gov’t was created by the people, for the people…we control it, it is our servant. Not the other way around.
Sorry, kind of went off on a tangent, there. But I think that, perhaps if given the chance, there would be many more altruistic people out there.
I’ve got to go for now, but I’ll ttyl.

0

330

Ê‘yviva

in July 30th, 2007 @ 23:51

324- if people needed to live in the country fifty years than no one would be able to run for president until the age of 50…… 35 years maybe?

326- i admit to not following CA politics closely, but my aunt lives there and she mentioned that he actually admitted to being wrong and DID something to change it… very impressive in today’s political climate.

re census: i agree that asking about race is pointless. there is no real cause for it. however, the census does have its uses. if, for example, a large number of children aged 3 were recorded, then the govt would know it needed to increase the school system in time for the influx of children, etc.

re taxes: there need to be taxes. there is no way around that. even if people were altruisticly minded, they would donate to charities and not to the govt. yes, soup kitchens might get alot of donations, but the roads would go unpaved so people couldn’t commute so people would lose their jobs so more people would end up needing to go to soup kitchens.

329- the govt has a very big business involved in schools. if the govt wasn’t involved many mre people would be uneducated because they could not afford schooling, also , some standards need to be set to insure that kids are actually learning enough in schools.

0

331

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 31st, 2007 @ 08:01

The government has to run things. It get things done. With no government, we live in a state of anarchy, and anarchy will never work. People are far too selfish.
The government needs money, but its use should be restricted. What happens now is that the White House can spend 30% of all taxes on the Iraq war, but give the school system a budget which is the financial equivalent of an F-16 fighter plane.

0

332

Shadowkat

in July 31st, 2007 @ 08:12

330-Taxes–That’s kind of a slippery slope concept, there, and not very reliable. Unless you have proof that all that would happen, then you can’t say that it will.
Schools–Hmph. Well, they don’t seem to be learning as much as they used to (no offense to anyone, it’s not your fault). The grades have been adjusted, tests dumbed down, and the average ACT score is 20.9, while the average SAT score is 1540…kind of sad, isn’t it? And back in the olden days, communities used to get together to pay a teacher to teach their children, which meant that they chose who taught. But I won’t get into it, right now…I’m mega-tired. Blah.

0

333

Shadowkat

in July 31st, 2007 @ 08:23

331-Good morning! Yes, I agree…all I want is to stick to the Constitution, though.

0

334

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 31st, 2007 @ 08:44

333: Morning? It’s 15:38… anyway, you can’t stick to the constitution, it’s like sticking to the bible! The founding fathers were fallable and human! You can’t blame america’s inflexebility on an ancient document which was designed to be _amendable_. The people who wrote the constitution weren’t gods! They had good, intelligent ideas and were very secular and bright people. But they had flaws. Thomas Jefferson had slaves, for Chrissakes!
Incidentally, most of them would be un-electable today. Wanna know why?
George Washington: Bad teeth.
Benjamin Franklin: Wrote “As to Jesus… I have some doubts on his divinity.” Kiss red states goodbye.
Thomas Jefferson: Ms Hemmings. Can’t have mistresses, but you can lie to the public about war.
John Adams: Claimed he was willing to make unpopular, principled decisions, then actually made unpopular, principled decisions.
Alexander Hamilton: Born in West Indies, so constitutionally impossible.
James Madison: 5′ 4”, and would weigh 108 pounds even after the camera added ten pounds.

0

335

Vixen in the Eyes of the Moon

in July 31st, 2007 @ 09:00

326- You were annoyed about that too? I haven’t met anyone besides me that was.

0

336

Ê‘yviva

in July 31st, 2007 @ 11:15

334- you forgot that thomas jefferson wouldn’t have gotten the blue states because he used creationism in the declaration.

you need to stick to something. the constitution is better than the bible- by a long shot (note: i am not saying there is anything wrong with the bible, i am simply stating that it should not be a basis for a govt) besides, the constitution isn’t only changed by amendmants, its also changed by interpritation. the supreme court is very important for this reason. to pick a highly debated one: what does the right to bear arms mean? or, what is a cruel and unusual ounishment?

0

337

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in July 31st, 2007 @ 12:39

336: Of course, the supreme courts interpretation depends on their rich friends and the opinion of the guy who assigned them. Goddamm Scalia…

0

338

Ê‘yviva

in August 1st, 2007 @ 22:55

337- obviously the person who assigned them picks people whose policies they agree with. there is little point in assigning an adversary to a position of such power.

0

339

dark duke of darkness

in August 2nd, 2007 @ 09:47

336-yeah. the constitution is a great thing. it needs to be changed, but luckily, it can be changed. it’s built in.
325-if what constitues stealing is taking wealth evenly from the far too rich and distributing it amoungst society fairly, then yes, stealing is fair. very fair.
334-well, tell me something i don’t know. america votes based on personality and appearance.
337-just cause it’s corrupt doesn’t mean its a bad system. everything is corruptable. additionaly, what she said. zyvia, that is. in 338. oh, whatever.

0

340

Ê‘yviva

in August 2nd, 2007 @ 12:46

325/339- there is a difference between making everyone economically equal and collecting taxes to raise the standard of living for the very poor. making everyon econimically the same is communist. communism is all very well in theory but can not work for a country.
collecting taxes is the only way the gov’t really has to get money- unless you’ld rather they run off of bribes? it makes sense to decide taxes by percent, otherwise you would never get enough money to run a country. you would need to charge more than many people could afford.

taxes. is. not. stealing.

0

341

Shadowkat

in August 2nd, 2007 @ 15:27

339-But if those rich people came to have that money through a clean way, then it’s theirs, not anyone else’s! I don’t understand why this is such a difficult concept!

340-The government isn’t even supposed to do most of the things it’s doing. Education, welfare, privately-owned businesses…all of these are things that the gov’t has no business at all of dealing with.

Yes. They. Are. In. Most. Cases.

0

342

Ê‘yviva

in August 2nd, 2007 @ 16:33

341- a few questions:
1) how is the government supposed to get money if they can’t collect taxes?
2) how would poor children get an education if the gov’t doesn’t fund it?
3) what is the gov’t supposed to be doing?

also for clarification purposes: when you say gov’t do you mean just the us gov’t or the state gov’ts as well?

0

343

cilroxmysox

in August 2nd, 2007 @ 16:56

maybe lower taxes and free low quality but still school schools and teh gov’t has plenty of crap to clean up its not like they are bored

0

344

Ê‘yviva

in August 2nd, 2007 @ 17:31

343- low quality schools? if people have poor schooling it is much harder to get above the poverty line. also, what defines “low quality”?
also, what doyou mean by “planty of crap to clean up”, i can think of many things, but what srt are you refering to?

0

345

Ê‘yviva

in August 2nd, 2007 @ 17:32

sorry for the double post, but cilroxmysox, who is paying for these schools?

0

346

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in August 3rd, 2007 @ 08:50

343: Bush finds plenty of time to go on holiday, he’s got enough time to actually do some work…

0

347

dark duke of darkness

in August 3rd, 2007 @ 09:47

341-if people came to have so much money in a “clean” way, they shouldn’t have been able to, because it was at the expense of someone else. there is only so much wealth, and if some poeple get more, others get less. having millions of dollars at the expense of hundredws of people living in poverty is not okay. one person may have made lots of money fairly, but society should not ahve allowed them to do it.
340-oh, sorry, did i imply that i supported communism? one can make people’s standard of living very close to the same without an authoratarian government. which i assume is what you think is wrong with realized communism. it even has a name:democratic socialism.
341-you know there is a historical reason america has anti trust laws. and public schools. and welfare programs. the first two of the above solved very real problems. the third could use some help. i would assume that you were taught about those historical reasons in school? i certainly was.
346-that was kinda unrelated….

0

348

Ê‘yviva

in August 3rd, 2007 @ 11:05

346- bush sn’t the entire gov’t. there are thousands of others.

347- if someone has worked hard enough to become a billionare, or their parents did so their children could have a good life, than they have the right to enjoy the privalges. i am not of the opinion that the standard of living should be the same for everyone. that might be nice, but is a complete impossibility. i simply think there should be a minimum standard of living. there are only three legal ways i can think of for the gov’t to get the money it needs to fund schools, welfare, pay the salaries of its workers, etc.
1) borrow money.
i think the national debt is high enough, don’t you?
2) print more
inflation. ’nuff said.
3) taxes.
i think this is by far the best option.

taxes is a large term. its the term applied to gas, property, income, etc…. do people have a problem with all of these taxes, or some of these taxes or none of these taxes?

0

349

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in August 3rd, 2007 @ 11:52

348: if someone has a multi-billion monthly income, they should be taxed accordingly! You can’t only take away like 15% of their income and leave all the rest to accumulate in their filthy rich pockets! Not to mention the tax breaks the current US government gave and keeps giving all its corporate sponsors!!

[I snipped a bit of the above message to get rid of some profanity. â€” Rosanne]

0

350

Unintended Pun

in August 3rd, 2007 @ 13:42

312- (I know we aren’t still on this subject. sorry!) I was watching something on TV. It was like Cops, but I don’t know the specific show. Anyway they were in the courtroom and the guy acted like he was about to attack someone, so they tasered him. This was understandable, since he was considered dangerous, but after he was restrained they kept tasering him. He was screaming and it was horrible. I would hate to be tasered. I’ve been electrocuted twice(by a short in a clothes dryer and by an electric socket), and I couldn’t imagine it lasting longer then it did.
I’m frustrated with our government right now. Nobody has any idea what’s going on. For example, here are some of the reason’s people think we’re in Iraq:
They’re letting Osama get away because GWB’s dad is in the oil business with Osama’s dad.
GWB’s dad holds a grudge against Saddam Hussein and GWB is avenging him.
We messed up when we got in there and we’re trying to fix it.
I’m not saying I believe any of these. The best explanation I’ve heard was a metaphor my dad used. He said that the war is like a kid putting their hand on the stove. You can say that the kid is dumb because they put their hand on the stove, but now they just have to fix it, no matter whose fault it was. That still doesn’t explain anything, but it almost makes sense, which is more than can be said for a lot of things.

0

351

Ê‘yviva

in August 3rd, 2007 @ 14:21

349- you also can’t decide to tax them for 95% because that way they end with the same amount of money as the person making 4k a month.

0

352

Red-tailed HAWK

in August 4th, 2007 @ 07:52

348-But a LOT of rich people don’t lift themselves out of their cushy office chairs to do anything! They are just heads of big companies, and they collect tons of money for not even doing anything! No hard-working secretary earns billions “for their children” or anyone else as you show it. They work harder, and don’t get anything at all enough to save much!

0

353

Ê‘yviva

in August 4th, 2007 @ 20:55

352- true, not all rich people work alot. but some do work very hard to get to the top, and even donate when they get there. my point beng you can’t tax everyone so that, in practical terms, they have the same amount of money. it just doesn’t seem just.

why should a surgeon earn the same as a waitress? are they both doing the same amount of work and eaqually beinifting society? i realize some people use waitressing as their sole means of support because that is the only job they can get, for whatever reason.

but i think it makes more sence to fix the welfare issues so that those people can get to the point where they can live without support that it does to tax rich people so they are on the same level as the poor. this would cause HUGE deflation. the minimum wae would go down, and the cycle would continue until a new car was fifty dollars……….

ok, so it probab;y wouldn’t be that drastic. but i hope it portrayed the point.

0

354

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in August 5th, 2007 @ 10:48

351: Oh yes you can.

0

355

Shadowkat

in August 5th, 2007 @ 17:44

342-I’ll get back to your questions when I have more time, but I generally mean the U.S. gov’t. If I don’t, I’ll clarify.

345-People who either don’t want to, or aren’t using them, to name a couple. My brother and I are homeschooled. Yet, we still have to pay to educate everyone who’s not. Alright, fine, but then let everyone else give us the same amount of money all the other schooled kids are getting.

347-You say “society” as if it’s an entity separate from the individuals that make it up. This is not the case. If someone with a gun came to your house, and told you that they needed to take some of your money so that other people (“society”, or everyone else in the country/world) could have it, whether you liked it, or not, would you comply? Is this not robbery?
And, by the way, wealth can be created in the form of any productive action, such as farming, metal-working, etc..
Also, in reply to your second reply to me (haha…that was weird), No, actually, I wasn’t indoctrinated with the automatic impulse to support our corrupt gov’t. I was homeschooled, and a good thing, too, apparently.

349-You’re right, favoritism isn’t right, but neither is stealing, which is what you’re proposing.

352-So maybe they should find another job, or learn enough to start their own business. If they’re satisfied with the money they’re making, then we shouldn’t interfere.

353-I like your view on the whole regulation thing. *nod of approval/respect*

354-Why?

Basic Libertarian Ideal:
You own yourself, just as does everyone else. You have the right to do what you want with yourself and your property. Everyone else has this same right. Since this is the case, telling anyone what to do with their self or property is wrong, because you are infringing upon their fundamental rights. This also means that for anyone to infringe upon your rights is also wrong. If someone is doing something that does NOT infringe upon your rights, even if you wouldn’t do it, yourself, you still have no right to tell them not to do so. This is about as simple as it gets. Questions? Comments? I’ll answer both.

0

356

Shadowkat

in August 5th, 2007 @ 17:45

That last bit was slightly unclear. I meant that you own yourself (and only you, no one else), just as everyone else owns themselves (and only them, no one else). Sorry about that.

0

357

Shadowkat

in August 5th, 2007 @ 17:49

Here’s a video (and it’s not by my dad, or even related to him): http:// www. isil. org/ resources/ introduction.swf
It also explains basic Libertarianism, if you’re interested.

0

358

Ê‘yviva

in August 5th, 2007 @ 20:10

355- please get back to the questions as soon as you can, because otherwise this debate will be strange.

re school tax: a lot of the money that goes into schools is state money. fed money is also involved, but its not all by any stretch of the imagination.

out of curiosity, shadowkat, did you need to pay for everything? i.e. textbooks, qualification tests (to prove you finished the curriculum) etc.

re libertarianism: this is a great theory. it strikes a delicate balance betwen govt and anarchy. however, practically, it wouldn’t work. part of the right to lige is the right to a certain standard of living and many people cannot do so without govt support.
by living in this country you are agreeing to obey the laws the govt puts out and accepting its authority.
paying taxes is not an agive for nothing deal. by paying taxes i am paying for (among many other things)
-the salaries of gov’t employies (from the janitor to the govner to the president)
-the education of almost all children
-roads
-scientific progression
-defence
-security
etc.

if people could provide all of that on their own, anarchy would be the ideal governemnt. the video you linked to said that you have the right to appoint others in your defence. why would i defend you for nothing? enter taxes.

sorry if that was unclear. say where and i’ll try to clear it up.

0

359

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in August 6th, 2007 @ 09:12

355: Because. Unadulterated richness is crap. Create more rifts in society. At least Bill Gates donates a lot to charity and stuff, but honestly. If all the rich bodies, including corporations and churches (especially churches- start taxing the Roman Catholic Church appropriately and you solve the third world problems overnight) have money they don’t need taken from them to better the world, the environment, fight poverty, crime, illiteracy, etc. the world would actually work.

0

360

Shadowkat

in August 7th, 2007 @ 10:24

358-1) How is the government supposed to get money if they can’t collect taxes?
There could, conceivably, be a donation-type system, in which people paid for the services they wanted voluntarily.
2) How would poor children get an education if the gov’t doesn’t fund it?
Their parents would either pay for a teacher to educate them, or their parents would educate them themselves. Also, since there are, indeed, good people in the world, it’s probably not too much of a stretch to say that some of the more educated people in a community would be willing to teach other peoples’ children for free.
3) What is the gov’t supposed to be doing?
Protecting and defending the equal rights of the people who created it, and, therefore, control it. It’s also supposed to enforce laws related to the protection of these rights, but only as a last resort, and only laws related to that subject. Nothing else. (This includes retaliating when we are attacked by another entity, but only to a reasonable extent, and only if the offender will not take responsibility for their actions.)

359-In other words, you’re saying that all rich people except Bill Gates are lazy, uncaring, irresponsible people? I know that’s not what you said, but I don’t know where you come off saying that you can tell other people what to do with their property.

0

361

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in August 7th, 2007 @ 15:15

360: Wealth must be distribuited, if not exactly equally among the populace, than at any rate to a greater extent than it is now! And don’t change the argument, it’s not an issue of what rights we have to do whatever the hell we want to with our property, it’s a question of how do we best implement mankind’s resources and fix the goddamm planet?

0

362

Sweet Melpomene

in August 7th, 2007 @ 17:28

I have no real issues with taxes, aside from the fact that they take about fifteen to twenty dollars off of my paycheck every week. Yes, that was said in a slightly bemused voice. In reality, it doesn’t matter so much.

Distributing wealth like that is like giving every kid in a class the same grade, or nearly the same grade [within a point or so] regardless of their ability and effort. Some kid who works amazingly hard, some kid who cuts, some naturally brilliant kid, and the average kid… obviously aren’t all being treated fairly based on this. Need I bring up that trite old “life isn’t fair” deal? I think we should be past that. The “system” is eternally flawed.

If every person worked to improve herself or himself, mankind as a whole would improve as a result. Depending on someone else or a group… leads to flaws, in my opinion.

Back to this wealth thing.

Well, there’s welfare, but that is a complete joke. COMPLETE JOKE. The really ghetto kids at my high school will tell anyone who asks that they plan on getting pregnant and living off of welfare once they graduate or drop out. They’re not even trying to improve their standard of living. If they’re aware they can, and don’t do it for themselves, forgive me for sounding cold, but it’s not everyone else’s responsibility to do it for them.

Fix the planet? *sigh* I’ll get back; I gotta go pollute it by driving somewhere.

0

363

Shadowkat

in August 8th, 2007 @ 12:44

361-Actually, it is. Everything is about rights. You wanna save the world, have at it, but don’t use my stuff to do it.

362-Oh, we do get along! (But, of course, I’m not for polluting the planet…I just don’t freak out about it.)

0

364

FrigidSymphony .:[Blackjack Guillotine]:.

in August 8th, 2007 @ 13:42

363: What if you have millions of dollars that you don’t use, don’t need, and would definitely not miss?

0

365

Gwendolyn of the Eastern Seas

in August 8th, 2007 @ 17:44

Because this is one of my favorite topics to rant about, who here has a problem with No Child Left Behind? I do, for several reasons:

NCLB has far too many loopholes. Impossible goals were set up for each state to be at or surpass by a certain point. Now, since we have no national test until high school, this allows states to water down their own test standards, so they look like they’re improving, but are really roughly the same in the subject whose standards they make easier. The ridiculous goals have led standards to be based on tests, rather than the opposite. A test is supposed to be a review of the curriculum, not the other way around. And since teachers are so anxious about losing their jobs, most of the good ones stay only with the passing schools, while the ones who really don’t care get stuck teaching at the bad schools. Thus, no improvement. And NCLB focuses far too much on highlighting failing schools and causing them shame. This isn’t a bad thing, but it’s not actually doing anything to help the aforementioned schools improve. And NCLB goes by a “one-size-fits-all” policy. Every student must be up to a certain level. They don’t measure by the individual needs of the students. That is to say, improvement is worthless unless it is up to standardized par. And since the two main test subjects are math and reading, science and social studies are receiving less and less instructional time, which is very bad in the long run. Also, schools are much too controlled on the local level. In eighth grade, all I’m going to learn about is South Carolina history. What’s the use of that if I move out of state? Shouldn’t we be more concerned with the history of the world than the history of the ancestors of the pompous, upper-class idiots running the state school board? Of course, the nation is full of clueless, disengaged parents, but that’s only part of the problem.

I DESPISE Margaret Spellings, that do-little lump.

0

366

Sweet Melpomene

in August 9th, 2007 @ 11:00

UGH PSSAs. Those stupid, mandatory state tests [for juniors] caused me to miss, altogether, an entire month of AP Chemistry. And the class went on, because everyone else in it was a senior.

They’re even a graduation requirement in our school. And 95% of the students have to take the test for it to count and our school to pass. It’s nearly failing. I personally thought the level of difficulty [or, rather, lack thereof] was insulting. But that’s beside the point.

NCLB is ridiculous like that.

It’s run by people who haven’t set foot in a classroom in years. Which is only the first of many problems.

GotES, if you really want to at least try to change that, go to a local School Board meeting and talk to the members of the board. At least one has to be willing to listen. And if (s)he is, get her/his email and keep that person informed as to what’s going on in the school and what sort of academic things the students would want to see. Not everyone doesn’t care.

0

367

Shadowkat

in August 9th, 2007 @ 20:11

364-Then I’ll do what I want with, but it’s not yours or anyone else’s decision what I do do.

0

368

Ê‘yviva

in August 10th, 2007 @ 10:24

360- your faith in human kind is very touching (and i don’t mean that sarcastically), but i do not share it.
1) i don’t see people giving enouugh money to keep the govt running. even the people who would donate money would ignore necassary things like salaries for govt workers. i would donate money to a school, but not into a sentaor pocket. however, if congress doesn’t get paid then only rich people can afford to be in it without starving their children.
2) i don’t see the very poor getting a good education. even if someone is being taught for free, that doesn’t mean they have a treaching degree and may only know the subject but not be able to teach it. parents may not be able to teach their children because they didn’t get an education themselves. tere is also a question of fairness. how can idemand that you do ‘x’ but not subsidize the cost at all?
3) rights is a veyr braod subject open to interpretatin. I think everyone has the right to an education, to feel safe, and to a fair trial (these are examples, obviously people have more rights than this). therefore i think the gov’t should pay for schools, policemen, and army, and the court system. the gov’t needs to get the money from somewhere. you also can’t decide that only people with, for example, children in public schools need to pay a certain amount of tax becaue the money for schools (at least in jersey) is gotten mostly from property tax. not a “school tax”. this would mean that as long as the house is in my grandmothers name i wouldn’t have t pay tax. it make sno sense.

also, if you don’t pay for it you shouldn’t get to enjoy it. your taxes pay for policemen which keep the streets safer. they pay for roads so you can get to work. they pay fr the court system so that the laws garanteeing your rights are upheld. etc. etc. etc. etc.

no country could survive without taxes. it would go into so much debt so fast because the donations wouldn’t be enough.

i am not saying everyone should get the same amount of money, taxing everyone so they end with the smae amount, because, like sweet melpomene said, that would be like giving everyone the same grade. however, eveyone should give something.

0

369

agagabagabag

in August 15th, 2007 @ 22:47

205- Why do you hate it?
227- You are being one of the most ignorant people l’ve ever met! How toasty warm l’ll be! And when you’re flutting merrily about on your little feathered wings, remember your old friend agagabagabag, and how tragic it was that he had to be punished for doing what he thought was right.
265- How awful. l’m sorry, but that’s ghastly.
291- oh aye. l’m a sword man meself.
310- What did she do?
313- But none of them apply!
321- Cool!
326- Yes he is! he’s awful! Who’s the californian here, anyway?
332- Hey, speak fo’ you’self! l go to the best public intermediate school in the state!
334- Hi- larious!
365- NCLB is probably the worst school idea ever concieved.

0

370

Glassboro

in August 18th, 2007 @ 10:10

Nice way of responding to 227, agagabagabag. Actually, I was told a few days ago that I wouldn’t go to hell (if it exists) because I have a religion. I guess that there are different people with different points of view, though,

0

371

agagabagabag

in August 18th, 2007 @ 13:01

370- Yeah. And thenk you.

0

372

Supergeek and the Deathly Hallows

in August 21st, 2007 @ 18:29

227-Hey nobody ever said I was condemning you. I am just warning you.

BTW, did you know Thomas Jefferson, our 2nd president, also found it very hard to stay out of other country’s business? He was not a very popular leader, either. I guess things haven’t changed. Which is perfectly fine.

0

373

Shadowkat

in August 23rd, 2007 @ 08:57

369-
1) Oh, really? And why, pray tell, is Ron Paul “ghastly”?
2) And where, exactly, do you think the gov’t gets the money to subsidize those people? Also, what if someone didn’t want health insurance? You can’t force them to have it.
3) I could make a really mean comment on the whole public school thing, but I’ll hold my tongue.

370-Well, I don’t, and the way I look at it is: I don’t believe in Heaven, which means I don’t believe in Hell. This doesn’t mean that they’re not real, but I still don’t think that, even if they are, I should be punished for Eternity for not believing in them. Have you ever seen the film Zeitgeist, or at least the first 3rd of it, or so? You can find it on YouTube…it’s pretty interesting.

372-Um, T.J. was our 3rd president. And he was very well liked. Yeah, he slipped up a couple times, but he was generally a good president.

0

374

agagabagabag

in August 23rd, 2007 @ 09:10

373-1) Because he wants to end IRS.
2) There wouldn’t be health insurance. Anyone born could just get healthcare.
3) Why don’t you post it?

0

375

agagabagabag zepata

in August 23rd, 2007 @ 13:21

Donaldo, why do refer to yourself as a geek? Geeks are mostly liberal and atheist. You kinda stand for what atheism doesn’t.

0

376

Axa

in August 23rd, 2007 @ 14:55

375) whoa whoa since when?

0

377

agagabagabag zepata

in August 24th, 2007 @ 14:33

376-Conservatism isn’t very nerdy. Think about it.

0

378

Shadowkat

in August 26th, 2007 @ 15:30

374-1) What’s wrong with that?
2) And where would they get the money for it?
3) Because it’s rude, and we’re not supposed to flame.

377-Well, then you have to define nerdy. And who are you? Or, what does “zepata” mean, if that explains it?

0

379

the man for aeiou

in August 27th, 2007 @ 17:41

378- he’s agagabagabag but he has “zepata” at the end. that is from pie isle. read more.

0

380

agagabagabag zepata

in August 27th, 2007 @ 22:54

378-1) See 2
2) With taxes
3) Fine.
It’s my blog last name.
372- The difference is…?
Okay, no more fooling around. I going to ask some straight questions, and I want straight answers.
1.If god exists, why isn’t the world perfect?
2.Why would he have to send an apocalypse or punish people, if he could just make it so there were no problems? 3.Why wouldn’t he make everyone in the world be his religion?
4. If he hates gays, why did he have to make them exist?
I’m not being rude, l just want answers.

0

381

Shadowkat

in August 28th, 2007 @ 07:38

380-In other words, you’re going to make other people pay for something you want, just because you think they should?
@ religion-I’ve mentioned it before, but seriously, watch at least the first 3rd of Zeitgeist…feel free to watch the rest, but at least that part, please.

0

382

Glassboro

in August 28th, 2007 @ 08:25

373- He said that aetheism was a religion. I don’t want anyone getting the wrong impression, because I do not believe in god.

0

383

Jadestone

in August 28th, 2007 @ 11:22

Atheism is a religion. It is the belief that there is no heaven, hell, or other divine resting place.

0

384

Traggle

in August 28th, 2007 @ 11:37

383- It is also the belief that there is no supreme being(s).

0

385

Traggle

in August 28th, 2007 @ 11:37

Btw, please read post #1 before this goes too much further.

0

386

Shadowkat

in August 28th, 2007 @ 12:52

383-Agnosticism isn’t, though. In that, you just don’t believe in anything.

385-You have a point, but, see, ’tis somewhat unavoidable.

0

387

the man for aeiou

in August 28th, 2007 @ 16:50

380- 1)because than heven would be like earth.
2) so he can so his power.
3) because people need differt ways to get to heven
4) he does not hate gays.

0

388

I, man-gator

in August 28th, 2007 @ 20:11

380-if the Lord made everyone christian, they would have no free will. They’d basicly be robots. no one wants that. Same for two and three. People need to be able to choose.

0

389

Gwendolyn of the Eastern Seas

in August 28th, 2007 @ 20:16

I read this thread, and Donaldo’s narrow-minded views made me feel rather uncomfortable. I’m kinda glad he’s gone. That last post of his was very childish. If you truly believe in something, it shouldn’t matter if people side with you or not. Also, saying you’re not going to get to Heaven if you’re not Christian is just… ugh. That’s saying that all the perfectly decent Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Buddhists, practioners of Shinto, Daoists, Confucianists, atheists, agnostics, etc. are going to suffer for all eternity just because they aren’t Christian. Even if they’re good enough to be a saint by other standards. That just makes me frustrated.

0

390

Sobriquet

in August 28th, 2007 @ 20:38

389-Whenever I hear that sort of thing, I think of a Rowan Atkinson sketch where he plays the devil welcoming people to hell. (youtube it!) Among the people sent are murderers, looters and pillagers, theives, lawyers, fornicators, the French, the Germans, atheists, “and finally, Christians. Christians? Ah, yes, I’m sorry, I’m afraid the Jews were right.” (Jews don’t believe in hell, btw.) Some people are going to have different views, and thats fine, but please, don’t you just find it a bit rude condeming someone to hell? We may disagree with you, Donaldo, but we haven’t stated outright that we believe you are going to suffer eternal damnation for believing what you do.

0

391

Ê‘yviva

in August 29th, 2007 @ 15:39

380- before i begin answering, i would like to make one thing perfectly clear. I am answereing base don my personal belief system. I am rather agnostic, so even i am not sure that my answers are correct. this is a debate, there are no rights or wrongs. i may be wrong, i may be right. just becuase this differes from your opinion doesn’t mean i am inslting you.

1.If god exists, why isn’t the world perfect?
i can think of a few reasons for this:
a) god/goddess/gods/goddesses/lack thereof [hereafter called G] may not be all powerful
b) G has a different view of perfection than you do
c) free will. G put a bunch of things together as the world and let it run its own course.
2.Why would he have to send an apocalypse or punish people, if he could just make it so there were no problems?
consider my answer ot question 2, with an emphasis on c.
3.Why wouldn’t he make everyone in the world be his religion? i think each religion, or lack therof, views G in a different light. in a similar way that my friends view me as loud and my teachers as quiet. both are correct, and both are incorrect. However, i wouldn’t want to be thought of as only loud or only quiet. apply this to religion and maybe G doesn’t want to be seen in only one way either. variety is a good thing.
4. If he hates gays, why did he have to make them exist?
i don’t think G hates gays.

let me restate what i said before. you are free to disagree with me. i am not saying what i wrote is true, but i am not saying it is false either. please be curteous in your responces.

386- agnosticism isn’t the lack of belief. its the belif that there isn’t enough proof for a valid opinion to be held. it can also refer to people who are unsure of their own beliefs.

0

392

Shadowkat

in August 29th, 2007 @ 18:37

391-In its way…but it could be looked at from either side. We should stop arguing about it, though (or just not start), because it’s really not worth the trouble. Lol.

0

393

agagabagabag zepata

in August 29th, 2007 @ 19:55

387- 1) So?
2) Why does he need to?
3) Why?
4) Okay, that’s debateable.
391- 1.
A. Good answer, but the religions i’m thinking of include him being all- powerful. If a god isn’t all powerful, he might exist.
B. No, because he was angry with people. A suprememe being never has to be angry.
C. If he was all powerful, then he would know the awful outcome of doing that.
3. You have a point, but a lot of people wouldn’t say that. Why can’t god make christians stop believing that the path to god through Islam is blashphemous?
4. The christian god does.

0

394

the man for aeiou

in August 29th, 2007 @ 20:43

393- about number 4. I AM A CHRISTIAN! I hate how conzeritves make non-christian think that we hate gays. we don’t. nether does god.

0

395

Ê‘yviva

in August 30th, 2007 @ 13:30

393-
1a- i didn’t say G is or is not all powerfl. i simply didn’t exclude the possibility of G not being omnipotent. also, if you thnk of, for example, greek myths you will see how many people were fine with thinking G had faults. also, just because the stated views of a relgion have G as all powerful, doesn’t mean each indivdual believes G is.

1b- was he angry with people or did people percieve him as being angry? of my answers, i like this one best. no one said G had the same point of view as you.

1c- what would you be like if your parents had turned you into a mindless zombie? i think the pros outway the cons.

3- i’m not alot of people. i’m me.
also, please don’t blanket label christians. you seem to keep commenting that christinas think this or that. that doesn’t mean every christian does.

there is a saying that goes as follows: if you ask six rabbis a question you’ll get seven different answers.

no one agrees with anyone else totally. if six rabbis can give seven answers, don’t you think millions of christians (or any other group you can think of) have more than one?

4- what “christian god”? see above.
some view G as hating homosexuals, others don’t. i really don’t care what anyone thinks, everyone is entitles to his or her own opinions. however, those opinions should not dictate the lifes of others.
i have no problem with someone viewing homosexuality as wrong and making the personal descision to ignore any homosexual tendencies they may have. i don’t even have a problem with them thinking anyone who is activly gay or lesbian made the worng descision.
however, i do have a problem with them making it their life goal to stop others from making this descision. i beleive they should have faith that G will punish homosexuals if homosexuality is indeed wrong. ie- they should leave it up to G and not interfere with someone else.

sorry for the length. ask me if you want me to clarify anything.

0

396

Unintended Pun

in August 30th, 2007 @ 21:00

395-I agree with number 4. I support gay marriage, and if other people don’t I’m fine with it. I don’t understand why some gay people somebody’s never met getting married makes that person any more of a sinner. I’m spiritual and believe that there is a higher spirit power.

I hate it when people say someone will go to hell if they aren’t a certain religion. If G had so much power, why would G care if a mortal didn’t believe G existed. G must know that some people can’t just accept that kind of power.

I can’t stand people saying that Wicca is satanism. I practice some aspects of Wicca, and they are connected to respecting the Earth. Satanism is heresy against the Christian church, and has nothing to do with Wicca. Wiccans believe in three major powers and sometimes in other smaller deities. The names I use for the 3 major ones are The Universe (like Christian God), The God (like the father), and Mother Earth or The Goddess(like the holy spirit).

Anyways wasn’t this supposed to avoid religion?(even though I contributed to it)

0

397

agagabagabag

in August 30th, 2007 @ 21:50

395- 1a- They’re synonyms.
1b- Then what’s all this about the wrath of god?
1c- I wouldn’t care.
3- I fine with christianity when it’s easygoing, like buddhism, but it isn’t for the most part. It’s that majority l object to.
4- Fine, but that’s not the point. Why can’t god destroy what he doesn’t like or better yet not create it?

0

398

Ê‘yviva

in August 30th, 2007 @ 22:26

396- No one like sbeing told they will go to hell. I think the reason people believe that those who do not agree with them will got to hell is that they believe G is as they percieve G.
I disagree with them. I think there are many “correct” interpretations of G.

This thread was not intended to avoid religion. it was created as a forum for musers to discuss topics that many people did not agree on in a civil manner. religion became a self imposed taboo becuase people responded in the E2MB or Donaldo manner. if we can all remain civilized, there is no reason not to discuss it.

397- 1a- i know omnipotent mean all powerful. i simply said there is no way of knowing if G is omnipotent or not.
1b- would you please clarify what you mean by that? ie, what you are refering to.
1c- only because you would be conditioned not to. or because you don’t have a problem with it because of your personality. i would though.
3-i am not sure it is the majority. the most outspoken, perhaps?
4- who is to say G does or does not like it? like i stated previously, everyone has thier own correct path. for some, homosexuality may be the wrong path. for others it may be the right path.

0

399

widdershins (e~a)

in August 30th, 2007 @ 22:43

As someone who has now told you all that I’m bisexual, this conversation is rather odd. I’m seeing myself looped in with the “them” and told that God may hate me. Gee, thanks. That just makes my day so much happier!

Sorry. I just don’t like seeing people say that a being that’s supposed to be all loving and all forgiving hates me for loving. Anyone see the irony in that?

0

400

widdershins (e~a)

in August 30th, 2007 @ 23:54

“who is to say G does or does not like it? like i stated previously, everyone has thier own correct path. for some, homosexuality may be the wrong path. for others it may be the right path.”

Oooh, I like that belief. My path happens to be bi.

0

401

the man for aeiou

in August 31st, 2007 @ 16:17

WE NEED A NEW THERD!

0

402

Robert Coontz (Administrator)

in August 31st, 2007 @ 16:32

There’s no need to shout. The beneficent GAPA has every intention of granting your request.

0

MuseBlog

MB Calendar is Back!

Looking for Something?

Log in Here!

REALLY Random

Recent Comments

Categories

Our Places