The content of teaching in government schools is decided politically. He has the same number of votes as you do -- one. If your side has more votes, then your point of view gets taught. If his side has more votes, then your children get to learn his philosophy.
Don't like it? Then privatize the schools and the customers can decide the curriculum.
So what you're saying is given that you don't know how the universe was created, you'd rather pretend to know, than acknowledge you don't know?
The poster didn't say he doesn't know how the universe was created. He seems to have an answer that fits the question, regardless of how "ridiculous" you think it is.
1) (sarcasm: on) 'Cause religion has never had a problem with hate among it's followers. Hate never motivates religious people to kill or conquer or oppress. (sarcasm: off)
So someone else did it first. So what? Clearly, that doesn't make it Ok. What's your point?
2) As for left and right: why do you assume it's science on the left and religious on the right? Who do you see in current politics looking to subvert common goals for an extreme agenda?
George Soros, Micheal Moore, trial lawyers, unions, the ELF and the rest of the humans-last environmental crowd, AUSCS, the ACLU, and people who use hate as their political motivation. That's a list to start with.
The "right". The "right" is using fear, hate and divisivness to force others do as they want them to do,
You can't use "fear, hate and divisivness to force others". You can only use force to force others.
not do what may be best and agreeable for all. As wonderful as the Christian religion is, Liberty for all is not one of it's values. Freedom to choose and speak and disent in not among the 10 Commandments. Amercan values and Christian values to not have to conflict, but the right seem to want them to.
Jesus didn't write the 10 Commandments. He popularized the golden rule though.
The "right" wants liberty more than the left does. I'm on the right, and that's what I want. But maybe you disagree about who wants it more. So both sides want liberty. I don't get what the conflict is about if both sides want the same thing.
Also, anything in the public schools isn't a liberty issue. It's just a question of who wins politically. If you don't want the cirriculum determined politically, then the schools need to be privatized so the customers can choose the cirriculum.
3) This is not about hate, this is about what is best and honest. ID pushers are NOT honest people. They are knowingly using psuedo-science concepts and language to push a religious agenda. I thought lying was not allowed in the Christian religion.
Someone can believe something to be the truth without your agreement or approval. They don't even need the approval of scientists or slashdot or the news media. They're not lying. Are you lying about them?
We hate PEOPLE... [goes on to describe who he hates]
Ok.
Oh man... I just fed a troll, didn't I.
No, I genuinely think that hatred is more and more of the motivation for the policies and the preferences of the left. Regardless of whether they're correct or incorrect, policies shouldn't be motivated by hate.
Baloney. Conservatives are defined by the desire to regulate my individual, specifically who I can sleep with, how I chose to sleep with them
This is simply not true. Please cite one law enacted in the last 25 years that prohibits the activities you're refering to. I don't think you can.
what I chose to do with the consequences of sleeping with someone
If you mean you want to kill your kids, then yes. Sorry if that's too much for you. You could have chosen not to concieve them, but somewhere between conception and, say, the age of 21, there's a responsibility.
and regulating how and when I chose to die.
No one cares how you choose to die. It's good to have the choice though. Conservatives want to protect people from being killed. That's all.
I wouldn't mind so much if the conservatives would keep their God to themselves, but they keep trying to foist it upon me, like it or not; and I understand, as they're just trying to save me. Well, stop.
Foist is an interesting word there. Matters of God are a choice. No one's taking that choice away from anyone. If you're claiming otherwise, please cite some examples of where people have been forced to worship God.
If conservatives would truly get the hell out of my bedroom and drs. office, i would be a lot more sympathetic to the fiscal issues that they raise.
When was the last time anyone enacted a law that prevented anything from happening between adults in a bedroom? 50 years ago?
And ask Hillary Clinton about your doctor's office. She's the one who wanted to setup a government department to control every facet of what your doctor does from his first day of medical school on -- with criminal penalties for disobedience.
---
People have different values. You seem to value abortion and death ahead of everything else. If you change your mind and decide that abortion isn't more valuable than all the other freedoms combined, then vote conservative.
Wikipedia defines fascism as "exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
Conservatism is all about the individual. Conservatives want to protect the individual from oppressive taxation and government regulation.
Also, it's the liberals and the democrats who are obsessed with race. There are hundreds of race-identity groups that are in the main-stream on the left. There are zero main-stream race-identity groups on the right.
So far, this definition fits liberals more than conservatives.
uses violence
Earth liberation front and unions are violent left-wing organizations. On the right, there's... I guess some anti-abortion people from many years ago. A little closer to the left, but we'll call it a tie.
and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship
Except for the campaign-finance reform bill, there's no significant censorship on either side of the political debate. Traditionally, campaign-finance reform has been a Democrat issue, but Bush signed the bill. Tie on this one.
to forcibly suppress political opposition,
No significant forcible oppression on either side. Good.
engages in severe economic and social regimentation,
The left is for severe economic regulation and socialism. The right is for economic freedom. So the left is closer to facism on this count.
engages in corporatism
Score this one against the right if you want. I think it's a tie, but just of the sake of argument, let's say the right is closer to fascism on this one.
implements totalitarianism
Neither side has implemented totalitarianism.
So let's see:
Closer to fascism
Left...Right..Definition part
YES....NO.....exaults nation vs. individual YES....NO.....exalts race vs. individual RARE...RARE...uses violence CFR....CFR....uses censorship to surpress opposition (Campaign Finance Reform bill only) NO.....NO.....forcibly oppress opposition YES....NO.....severe economic, social regimentation NO.....YES....corporatism (for the sake of argument) NO.....NO.....implements totalitarianism
Conclusion: Neither the left nor the right in the US is fascist. Hooray! The left is closer than the right, but neither is very close.
I sold them. I'm going to use the money to buy a red pen. Then I'm going to use the red pen in a hold-up at a local elementary school for kids' lunch money. I need to save the stolen lunch money to buy plat.
Isn't that the whole point, to have a chance to forget the real world for awhile and start with a clean slate in a fantasy world where you're limited only by what your fantasy character can achieve?
How about you (1) get your facts straight before going off on a rant, and (2) wait until you actually see what the FSF is proposing before you assume that absolute worst from them?
Because those behaviors are counter to human nature.
Every individual has the same options/rights/privledges/etc.
The state only recognizes certain arrangements of certain combinations of those individuals, but each individual has and equal opportunity to combine into one of those arrangements.
Equal rights and equal protection are for individuals. It doesn't mean "anything goes". That's why you can't get married to your 3 year old sister, for example. But neither your rights nor hers are infringed by the various restrictions there.
There are no "couples rights" -- even to equal protection. Only individual rights.
I'm sorry, I was operating under the assumption that you thought you were a self-styled conservative yourself. The people have rights, they don't grant or take them away from each other, only to and from the government.
privledges then. Or rather if the government wants to change its rules. Don't get too distracted by the wording.
Not in all cultures. In many cultures, men can sometimes marry men.
I pay attention to anthropology. Please site one historical culture where men marry other men. I'm aware of a huge number of different sexual practices and living conditions in different cultures, but I've never seen an example of men marrying other men before the modern western version of it.
Only if you ignore the concept of romantic love. Heterosexual people can marry people they love, homosexuals can't.
The rights are, nevertheless, equal. If the electorate wants to add more rights, that's up to the democratic process.
It's also a violation of a person's right to associate with who they want, how they want.
No it isn't. Associate with who you want. Call yourselves a couple. Call yourselves a married couple if you want. Be in love if that works out for you.
But government-recognized marriage arrangements are between a man and a woman. If the voters decide to change it, that's their choice. If not, that's also their choice.
Every situation doesn't always work out the way you want.
But there are numerous government incentives for straight folks to marry-- Tax benefits, inheritance rights, adoption rights, the list goes on and on.
These are a government-sanctioned privledges which are restricted to one class of people.
You apparently didn't read what I wrote. A gay man has exactly the same right to marry and exactly the same benefits from marriage as a straight man. He also has exactly the same set of partners to choose from -- partners of the opposite sex (women). A gay man has the equal right to marry a woman that a straight man has.
Give me a fucking break. You're head is in the sand. "There is no problem! There is no problem!"
It's just a question. Please define the scope of the problem in specific terms. I honestly don't understand the rationale behind your fear of the "Bible thumpers".
Why is the state forcing their definition of "marriage" unto the people? Why not let individuals decide for themselves what the meaning of marriage is?
If 2 people (or 3 people, or whatever) want to say they're married, that's their own business.
What you want is for the state to acknowledge the marriage. Whether they do or not becomes the state's business. If you don't want them involved, don't involve them.
The choice of what "marriages" are acknowledged by the state should be based on the preference of the electorate in that state.
I'll define marriage as I wish, thank you very much.
It is unfair, because it singles out a form of free expression as a form of speech that requires regulation. Pure Hate Speech and shouting fire in a theatre are regulated free expression. Blogs have no business being regulated like that.
"Pure Hate Speech and shouting fire in a theatre" have no business being regulated either. Free speech is either free or it isn't.
Also, "unfair"? Since when is anything fair? For me, things stopped being fair when I was about 10 years old. I've long maintained that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives grew up. Save the "but it's not faaaaair!" stuff for the 3rd grade, ok?
Slashdot Mirror
The content of teaching in government schools is decided politically. He has the same number of votes as you do -- one. If your side has more votes, then your point of view gets taught. If his side has more votes, then your children get to learn his philosophy.
Don't like it? Then privatize the schools and the customers can decide the curriculum.
Or maybe you should home-school.
So what you're saying is given that you don't know how the universe was created, you'd rather pretend to know, than acknowledge you don't know?
The poster didn't say he doesn't know how the universe was created. He seems to have an answer that fits the question, regardless of how "ridiculous" you think it is.
What makes you think he needs your approval?
1) (sarcasm: on) 'Cause religion has never had a problem with hate among it's followers. Hate never motivates religious people to kill or conquer or oppress. (sarcasm: off)
So someone else did it first. So what? Clearly, that doesn't make it Ok. What's your point?
2) As for left and right: why do you assume it's science on the left and religious on the right? Who do you see in current politics looking to subvert common goals for an extreme agenda?
George Soros, Micheal Moore, trial lawyers, unions, the ELF and the rest of the humans-last environmental crowd, AUSCS, the ACLU, and people who use hate as their political motivation. That's a list to start with.
The "right". The "right" is using fear, hate and divisivness to force others do as they want them to do,
You can't use "fear, hate and divisivness to force others". You can only use force to force others.
not do what may be best and agreeable for all. As wonderful as the Christian religion is, Liberty for all is not one of it's values. Freedom to choose and speak and disent in not among the 10 Commandments. Amercan values and Christian values to not have to conflict, but the right seem to want them to.
Jesus didn't write the 10 Commandments. He popularized the golden rule though.
The "right" wants liberty more than the left does. I'm on the right, and that's what I want. But maybe you disagree about who wants it more. So both sides want liberty. I don't get what the conflict is about if both sides want the same thing.
Also, anything in the public schools isn't a liberty issue. It's just a question of who wins politically. If you don't want the cirriculum determined politically, then the schools need to be privatized so the customers can choose the cirriculum.
3) This is not about hate, this is about what is best and honest. ID pushers are NOT honest people. They are knowingly using psuedo-science concepts and language to push a religious agenda. I thought lying was not allowed in the Christian religion.
Someone can believe something to be the truth without your agreement or approval. They don't even need the approval of scientists or slashdot or the news media. They're not lying. Are you lying about them?
We hate PEOPLE... [goes on to describe who he hates]
Ok.
Oh man... I just fed a troll, didn't I.
No, I genuinely think that hatred is more and more of the motivation for the policies and the preferences of the left. Regardless of whether they're correct or incorrect, policies shouldn't be motivated by hate.
Why don't you all just say it:
You hate religious people, especially Christians.
Even though you'll allow them to vote (for now) and pay taxes, you don't want them to have any say in the education those taxes buy.
Is the truth so hard to say?
Titan Shipping Company
Baloney. Conservatives are defined by the desire to regulate my individual, specifically who I can sleep with, how I chose to sleep with them
This is simply not true. Please cite one law enacted in the last 25 years that prohibits the activities you're refering to. I don't think you can.
what I chose to do with the consequences of sleeping with someone
If you mean you want to kill your kids, then yes. Sorry if that's too much for you. You could have chosen not to concieve them, but somewhere between conception and, say, the age of 21, there's a responsibility.
and regulating how and when I chose to die.
No one cares how you choose to die. It's good to have the choice though. Conservatives want to protect people from being killed. That's all.
I wouldn't mind so much if the conservatives would keep their God to themselves, but they keep trying to foist it upon me, like it or not; and I understand, as they're just trying to save me. Well, stop.
Foist is an interesting word there. Matters of God are a choice. No one's taking that choice away from anyone. If you're claiming otherwise, please cite some examples of where people have been forced to worship God.
If conservatives would truly get the hell out of my bedroom and drs. office, i would be a lot more sympathetic to the fiscal issues that they raise.
When was the last time anyone enacted a law that prevented anything from happening between adults in a bedroom? 50 years ago?
And ask Hillary Clinton about your doctor's office. She's the one who wanted to setup a government department to control every facet of what your doctor does from his first day of medical school on -- with criminal penalties for disobedience.
---
People have different values. You seem to value abortion and death ahead of everything else. If you change your mind and decide that abortion isn't more valuable than all the other freedoms combined, then vote conservative.
Wikipedia defines fascism as "exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual,
Conservatism is all about the individual. Conservatives want to protect the individual from oppressive taxation and government regulation.
Also, it's the liberals and the democrats who are obsessed with race. There are hundreds of race-identity groups that are in the main-stream on the left. There are zero main-stream race-identity groups on the right.
So far, this definition fits liberals more than conservatives.
uses violence
Earth liberation front and unions are violent left-wing organizations. On the right, there's
and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship
Except for the campaign-finance reform bill, there's no significant censorship on either side of the political debate. Traditionally, campaign-finance reform has been a Democrat issue, but Bush signed the bill. Tie on this one.
to forcibly suppress political opposition,
No significant forcible oppression on either side. Good.
engages in severe economic and social regimentation,
The left is for severe economic regulation and socialism. The right is for economic freedom. So the left is closer to facism on this count.
engages in corporatism
Score this one against the right if you want. I think it's a tie, but just of the sake of argument, let's say the right is closer to fascism on this one.
implements totalitarianism
Neither side has implemented totalitarianism.
So let's see:Conclusion: Neither the left nor the right in the US is fascist. Hooray! The left is closer than the right, but neither is very close.
Now where's my cane and Metamucil?
I sold them. I'm going to use the money to buy a red pen. Then I'm going to use the red pen in a hold-up at a local elementary school for kids' lunch money. I need to save the stolen lunch money to buy plat.
Isn't that the whole point, to have a chance to forget the real world for awhile and start with a clean slate in a fantasy world where you're limited only by what your fantasy character can achieve?
No. The point of games is supposed to be "fun".
So - AOL successfully thwarted a potential sexual predator... what's the lawsuit about?
Money.
Any more questions?
Voters decide elections.
That's all the middle ground and election integrity we need. We don't need to buy any more at the cost of our free speech. Not even a tiny bit.
If politics on radio and TV should be censored, then the Internet should be censored too.
The entire campaign finance law needs to be repealed. Not modified. Not limited. Repealed.
Restore freedom of speech before it's too late.
How about you (1) get your facts straight before going off on a rant, and (2) wait until you actually see what the FSF is proposing before you assume that absolute worst from them?
Because those behaviors are counter to human nature.
Yeah, Canada is safe. You've got those huge oceans on either side of the country. They'll protect you.
You don't get it. If these batteries aren't toxic, then we can't make ourselves look good by condemning their use.
It's people like you who ruin environmentalism for everyone.
Um. How about "I don't want to wait for batteries to charge when I can just stop and get some that are already charged".
Can we also stop the calendars at summer? If so, it's a deal.
Every individual has the same options/rights/privledges/etc.
The state only recognizes certain arrangements of certain combinations of those individuals, but each individual has and equal opportunity to combine into one of those arrangements.
Equal rights and equal protection are for individuals. It doesn't mean "anything goes". That's why you can't get married to your 3 year old sister, for example. But neither your rights nor hers are infringed by the various restrictions there.
There are no "couples rights" -- even to equal protection. Only individual rights.
"If the electorate wants to add more rights,"
I'm sorry, I was operating under the assumption that you thought you were a self-styled conservative yourself. The people have rights, they don't grant or take them away from each other, only to and from the government.
privledges then. Or rather if the government wants to change its rules. Don't get too distracted by the wording.
Not in all cultures. In many cultures, men can sometimes marry men.
I pay attention to anthropology. Please site one historical culture where men marry other men. I'm aware of a huge number of different sexual practices and living conditions in different cultures, but I've never seen an example of men marrying other men before the modern western version of it.
Only if you ignore the concept of romantic love. Heterosexual people can marry people they love, homosexuals can't.
The rights are, nevertheless, equal. If the electorate wants to add more rights, that's up to the democratic process.
It's also a violation of a person's right to associate with who they want, how they want.
No it isn't. Associate with who you want. Call yourselves a couple. Call yourselves a married couple if you want. Be in love if that works out for you.
But government-recognized marriage arrangements are between a man and a woman. If the voters decide to change it, that's their choice. If not, that's also their choice.
Every situation doesn't always work out the way you want.
But there are numerous government incentives for straight folks to marry-- Tax benefits, inheritance rights, adoption rights, the list goes on and on.
These are a government-sanctioned privledges which are restricted to one class of people.
You apparently didn't read what I wrote. A gay man has exactly the same right to marry and exactly the same benefits from marriage as a straight man. He also has exactly the same set of partners to choose from -- partners of the opposite sex (women). A gay man has the equal right to marry a woman that a straight man has.
Give me a fucking break. You're head is in the sand. "There is no problem! There is no problem!"
It's just a question. Please define the scope of the problem in specific terms. I honestly don't understand the rationale behind your fear of the "Bible thumpers".
Why is the state forcing their definition of "marriage" unto the people? Why not let individuals decide for themselves what the meaning of marriage is?
If 2 people (or 3 people, or whatever) want to say they're married, that's their own business.
What you want is for the state to acknowledge the marriage. Whether they do or not becomes the state's business. If you don't want them involved, don't involve them.
The choice of what "marriages" are acknowledged by the state should be based on the preference of the electorate in that state.
I'll define marriage as I wish, thank you very much.
Go ahead. No one's stopping you.
It is unfair, because it singles out a form of free expression as a form of speech that requires regulation. Pure Hate Speech and shouting fire in a theatre are regulated free expression. Blogs have no business being regulated like that.
"Pure Hate Speech and shouting fire in a theatre" have no business being regulated either. Free speech is either free or it isn't.
Also, "unfair"? Since when is anything fair? For me, things stopped being fair when I was about 10 years old. I've long maintained that the difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives grew up. Save the "but it's not faaaaair!" stuff for the 3rd grade, ok?