The truth of the matter is that wealth will always increase. Distribution of resources problems are not the same as problems with lack of resources. You should see what people wrote in the begining of the industrial revolution and how silly they sound now.

Sure people can have children if they are homosexual, but as soon as you start having children that makes you bisexual.

I think I allready stated that doing such things at a funeral is beyond bad.


When the left has tolerance for Christians putting up a cross at a war memorial maybe I'll believe that they are speaking for some ideal rather than thier own personal powerbase and methods of control.

What left are you talking about? The radicals on either side are not representative of the majority. Geeze. I don'y give a flying firetruck what you put on a grave, as long as it does not go against the wishes of, first, the deceased, and second, their family. And, lookie, I'm a leftist! And, lookie, I have a problem with ridiculous protestors who propogate hatred and intolerance. I don't want power, I don't want control, I want everyone to be left the hell alone and not have to deal with being made to feel like less than scum because of idiotic reasoning and a stupid fking book that people use to justify their own inadequacies as human beings.

Why is that so hard to understand?

There is a line between free speech and unneeded hatred, and these people crossed it. I don't care if their religion says they should convert the sinners so we can all burn together. I shouldn't have to put up with their and neither should anyone else.

Yes, that squashes their rights, but big deal. Rights to peace are more important than your right to tell me how to live.

EDIT: And, yes, that means we would be telling these people how to live. But don't try to use that argument Daganev, it's flawed and you know it. It opens up a world of moral issues that society is willing to accept at the moment but would need to be reviewed if we are going to insist on rights of freedoms no matter what.

EDIT: Watch your language. ~Shiri~

I'm not quite whats so flawed about the fact that all of these arguments tend to come down to, -I- don't like it, so I don't want -you- to do it. The more that freedom is defined as 'me me me' the less freedom you will end up with.

The left would be those who gain power from a socialist system. In America those are Labor Union Leaders, Leaders of Government programs, and Politicans who support those systems.

I'd say the right are those who gain power from a free market system. In America that would be the over achievers, Business leaders and Politicans who support those systems.

It just so happens that currently, the left appears to be on this antireligion crusade, which is resulting in people doing what they can to express thier religious ideas publicly.

I'm not defining freedom as that. I just think it is ridiculous to suggest that people should be able to spread hatred. I don't like it, true, but if it wasn't hurting someone I would fight for it to continue. But it does hurt people, me being one of them.

You could extend your argument to killers, you know. -I- don't like being killed, but just because -I- don't like it doesn't mean I should inhibit the freedoms of someone who needs and wants to kill.



I've never heard that kind of definition of left/right. Left, to me, is about social issues and adaptation, where as the right is about tradition, conservitivness and, to be honest, arrogance of humanity.



It just so happens that the right is on this anti-gay crusade which is resulting in people doing what they can to express their gay ideas publicly.

read this and this

I'm too lazy to read the rest of the thread, but He (IF he exists) might hate "Fags", incestuous activity, bonking animals, and the like.. but he definately does NOT mind you going at it with your cousins.

Or lesbians. God loves lesbians.

And apparently, goats will take our sins away.

Edit: Oh, and extremists?

Jack T Chick. He loves you.

Really.

How does that make you feel Daganev?

Wrong.

Sexuality is based on what gender you find yourself attracted to (such as I am attracted to females and not to males). Despite the fact that I am not attracted to males, it would be possible to engage in sexual activity with a male (although, as I am not attracted to them, I won't.)

Evidence to my point: a friend of my girlfriend is a gay male. One of his close friends is a lesbian. She wanted to have a child of her own, and couldn't afford artificial insemination, etc. They got smashed, and she is now pregnant.

And just to clarify, she chose him as father because they were such good friends, etc., and they've made parental arrangements together.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...mosexual_brains


Gay men respond to the pheremones of testosterone differently than straight men, and similarly to straight women.

Interesting.

Daganev, about free of speech and free to spread hate against people, I have a question.
If a few dozens neonazis used to camp in front of your parents house, without doing anything but throw insults about jews and how they are going to hell and similar nice things. Each time you looked out of the window, you would see those people. Each time your friends came to your home, they would see those people and eventually stop going to your house. In the wedding of your hipotetical sister they would be there, with their "FREE OF SPEECH" rights.
So, please, tell me if you would think that is right and should be allowed, because well, you're just to ignore it, because you're strong and can ignore them.
You don't need to throw things at people to hurt them, you can hurt their minds and their feelings, and their mental stability.

On the other hand, I find it's very different people asking for equal rights (for example, gay marriage) than people asking for other people to have lesser rights, including the right to be a person.
I'll find gays can be compared to those "god hates fags" people when they start asking that anybody non gay will go to hell and should be made ashamed in public and have a funeral disrupted because they like people of the oposite gender. With the FREE OF SPEECH laws handly, in case a policeman inquires.

Personally, I think my freedom ends when somebody else freedom starts.
The fact that to hurt a person you don't need to kill/hit him, as is proved by the fact that ostrazizing was a mean of punishing people that often lead to that people leaving or suiciding, doesn't excuse that attempting against other people freedoms is wrong and shouldn't be defended by any misuse of freedom.

Quoted so that others won't miss this gem. I couldn't have put it more perfectly.

Yeah, whatever you say.

The rule 'wealth will always increase' has absolutely no backing, you just made that up. In fact, even if it were true, it's entirely irrelevant to this issue. Population grows geometrically when unchecked (i.e. with everyone who is able to do so procreating) and wealth cannot grow faster than an arithmetic progression. This means that unchecked population will always outpace wealth in the end. The fact that people in the past were wrong about population growth does not mean that it is suddenly an unknowable item. I can say "you should see what the people in the middle ages thought about medicine and see how silly they sound now" and that does not make our current medicines wrong.

That is one of the single most intelligent things I have ever heard.

The Coalition to stop the use of Child Soldiers says "Palestinian armed groups involved children in fighting and suicide bombings." They are not a Jewish organization. They are not a Religious organization. They are an internation organization. They were easily found by a simple Google search for child soldiers. How can you make outlandish claims like this without bothering to check basic facts?

On a side note, perhaps you would be interested to note that the Israeli forces quote "used torture and other forms of coercion to recruit Palestinian children as informants." Additionally, they recruit children as young as 15 to guard Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Surely these Jewish organizations that are based entirely on ideals rather than self interest would be protesting these actions just as loudly? Oh wait, they aren't.

EDIT: I should note that Amnesty International publically endorses the findings of The Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers http://www.bayyinat.org.uk/hrights15f.htm

Damn it.. I wrote a two page responce to all the emails and my IE explorer at the labs crashed on me.

I'll take the hint from the guy upstairs and just leave my comments as..

Dag nabbit, You caught me red handed.

I had some really good points too, so I'll just bullet them here instead of writing it all out again.


There is freedom you can have that does not affect the freedom of others.

Judging Left and Right by 'progressive' and 'status quo' is a definition of the left and right by the left and right and do not hold up under scrutiy. Economic decision making is the only aspect of the Left and Right that I find fits everywhere, then you also have up and down (as my friend likes to say) that applies to Authortative vs Lack of authority.


And lastly, as the Anti-semetic websites like to point out.. all these 'international' organizations are run by Jews anyways.