I heard something on CNN that was a bit startling.

They said that the reason so many conservatives voted this time and the reason Bush was reelected was not over the war in Iraq, homeland security or the economy.

They said the reason was morality.

WTF?

They said that many of the bush supporters were worried about gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion issues so that is why so many bush supporters turned out at the polls.

I find that a bit shocking.

I’m confident that with one or more Supreme Court judges on their way out, bush will be selectively placing people in those spots so he can carry on with his agenda.

I’m sure they will reverse roe vs. wade.

With a republican senate and president in office for another four more years: I’m sure they will pass law that will allow the FCC to directly fine people like Howard Stern. I’m positive we won’t go anywhere with government funded stem cell research.

I’m sickened that so many people put their ridiculous religious beliefs in front of progress in science and medicine yet these same bible thumpers don’t care about the environment or the death of innocent people.

I want to clarify that my disgust is aimed at the religious nuts and not what I would call normal conservatives like many of you here (Dev, outrider, Jon, etc) that supported bush for the right reasons: The war on terror, the economy, homeland security, etc.

I respect you guys regardless…

Hope I did not offend anyone just wanted to vent about what I heard on CNN.

--------------------

For the Repubs: Toby Keith GMC like a rock Let's Roll bumper stickers. Watch Foxnews. Laughs at Moore. Debates Bojangle's drive thru.

For the Dems: Rent "Lost In Translation", think it's great, and peer out window at new Passat debating Olive garden. Smile. Read Washington Post. Laughs at rednecks.

Things like that are not new.

quote:

---

Originally posted by outrider:
imo, basically it goes like this 7 out of 10 voters are this:

For the Repubs: Toby Keith GMC like a rock Let's Roll bumper stickers. Watch Foxnews. Laughs at Moore. Debates Bojangle's drive thru.

For the Dems: Rent "Lost In Translation", think it's great, and peer out window at new Passat debating Olive garden. Smile. Read Washington Post. Laughs at rednecks.

But neither group is really more educated than the other, they just think they are.

---

I know you're not placing poeple in pigeon holes here but let me respond:
1. I had to google Toby Keith.
2. Not GMC but Dodge (for me I mean)
3. Let's Roll - who can argue with that? It's fight or get taken down. I would much rather fight.
4. Fox News - only for entertainment. I listened to TalkFM for a short while but that pissed me off. I really, really hate listening to one-sided arguments and points of view as well as hearing people with differing points of views being silenced then ridiculed without the right to reply.
5. I don't laugh at Moore but I don't take everything he says and hang my coat on it either. I think it's a great thing that people in this country can at least voice their opinion without being shot.
6. I dunno about the Bojangles thing.

7. Watched Lost in Translation and hated it.
8. If I peer out the window I DO see a new Passat. It's mine, it's parked in the front yard waiting for me to finish cleaning it and list it on eBay.
9. Olive Garden!!! Not for me thanks. My wife and I love to dine out but we go to nicer places than that. You know, 99, Chilis, TGI Fridays, etc.
10. I do smile
11. I don't read any papers, but I usually check out CNN online as well as the Edinburgh Evening News online (paper from back home).
12. Yes, I laugh at rednecks.

I think I share beliefs with both parties but the way some things are headed it really scares me.

--------------------

Thousands voted for bush and kerry side by side in every state. Even Texas, heh.

chilli's is over-rated imo.

Let's see:

I prefer Toyota & Nissan but I like what they've done to the new Ford 150 Truck.

I don't allow bumper stickers or any stickers on my vehicles.

I don't like any news reporters in general but will watch to keep up with things.

I laugh with Moore not at him.

I thought "Lost In Translation" was very average and left the theatre wondering why people said it was so good.

I hate the Olive Garden but then again I'm Sicilian. I tend to like non-chain type places but if we are talking chain type places I would say Outback is pretty good.

I read our local paper.

I laugh at rednecks.

[riff to crazy train]I I I [/riff to crazy train]

[ 11-05-2004: Message edited by: Cacophonous ]

--------------------

--------------------

The only thing I can think of saying is, "Bite me" , they won and you lost because you think you are better.

(I am not speaking to anyone directly)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cyborg6:
I warned that rOuGUEfellah of making fun of "trailer trash" in that post the day before the election. Make any sense to you now?

---

No

quote:

---

The only thing I can think of saying is, "Bite me" , they won and you lost because you think you are better.[/QB]

---

I wasn't running for any positions.

quote:

---

(I am not speaking to anyone directly)

[/QB]

---

oops

--------------------

The people who see value in morals, the belief in a higher power and the value of protecting our constitution voted. I support them not because of their beliefs exactly but for their good intentions. They are simple folks who are afraid of change and are the greatest protectors on "Gods" constitution, even if they are not aware of it. Remember, some of them just got cable down there in "those parts" this year and turned the TV and were shocked by Puffy and Michael Moore. It scared the shit out of them and as I said, "They voted".

quote:

---

I don't consider myself a liberal or a conservative. I think I'm just a normal guy in the middle.

---

That's probably how most people in "jesusland" really feel without a poll or two.

To be honest his "Faith" scares the hell out of me but I respect and appreciate having a President who has the strength of his convictions where ever they come from.

Oh yeah, btw being athiest doesn't mean a person lacks moral values. It just means they don't happen to come from a religious perspective. Personally religion is the whole problem with the world in a nutshell if you ask me.

People keep dying because of religion. Regardless, Bush won't try to turn America into the America from "Escape from LA" and couldn't get it on even if he tried. Roe vs. Wade will stand, and sensible people will keep us headed in the right direction ultimately. America has a secular government and it's not likely to change. An amendment to remove separation of church and state will never happen in our lifetimes if ever.

( All I can say is thank god (lol) not everybody is afraid of the dark )

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

I’m sickened that so many people put their ridiculous religious beliefs in front of progress in science and medicine yet these same bible thumpers don’t care about the environment or the death of innocent people.

---

I have a question Cac: WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU EXPECT PEOPLE TO BASE ANY DECISION ON?! For without any form of belief structure, decision making is pointless. Perhaps you would like to outlaw religion...oh wait: You don't agree with that do you? For thinking that and being an American inherently would make you a hypocrite, un-American and an enemy of the American Constitution...or are you already that without exactly saying just that? Really though, your comment there is, well....to be to the point, rather ignorant and un-American as it gets. I mean really, if I do not believe in something, am I going to go against my values, morals, ethic, ideologies etc and decide to go for it anyway? People like you are what make religious people thrive my friend. Persecution and the resistance to deny ones deity/belief structure of choice garners them a certain inner-righteousness. Think of THAT anytime you are an intolerant towards someone who decides to put their faith in something other than a man with a test-tube. Your attitude empowers religious people to an extent which does nothing but angers you further. It is rather quite funny when you think about it.

Anyway, there are many atheists who think we should not "play God" by means of artificially extending life. Darwin in essense through "natural selection" was one of them.

You also have proven your thoughts of scientific advancement/environmentalism/life entension to be purely contradictory. People living beyond their years creates a burden on many things from the money in your pocket (insurance premiums etc) to the ever increasing demand for food to the ever increasing need for industrialization and thus harming of our environment...all to sustain the ever growing population that was NOT SUPPOSED TO LIVE THIS LONG! And it is not that they don't care Cac, it is that they understand a little more that you HAVE to let go rather than science is willing to admit that it has no real power over life. I mean common, I do not want to sound like a "Bible Thumper" nor do I want to sound like some sort of extremist, but I do not think you fully thought out the cause/effect of what you are bitching about. And while I may seem like I am running in circles with my argument, it is a cyclical thing to begin with.

[ 11-07-2004: Message edited by: Snag ]

1) Why are you yelling at me?

2) I never said that people should make decisions without having some type of belief structure. Why not use normal morals and common sense for a belief structure? If a person needs guidance they can start with the local laws.

3) Please send all of Canada’s flu shot to the USA since the ever-growing population is not supposed to live this long.

4) You misspelled essence & extension.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cacophonous:
Why not use normal morals and common sense for a belief structure? If a person needs guidance they can start with the local laws.

---

Are you saying that faith-based morals are abnormal and lack common sense? What do you have against faith-based morals, and why do you think they are inferior to secular(?) morals?

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reality:
Are you saying that faith-based morals are abnormal and lack common sense? What do you have against faith-based morals, and why do you think they are inferior to secular(?) morals?

---

Faith-based morals can be abnormal depending on your faith. An example may be some sort of satanic religion.

I don't have anything against faith-based morals in general but quote frankly I'm a bit scared when bible thumpers say things like gays should be eliminated from the face of the earth or that women don't have the right to decide what happens to their own bodies when it comes to abortion, etc.

Quite frankly I'm more afraid of bible thumpers than satanists.

--------------------

quote:

---

Are you saying that faith-based morals are abnormal and lack common sense? What do you have against faith-based morals, and why do you think they are inferior to secular(?) morals?

---

--------------------

--------------------

--------------------

I think at least half of the planet's population believes in some kind of supernatural stuff, perhaps even almost everybody? I'd say it's pretty natural, while NOT believing in the supernatural is the abnormal situation.

Not that I think it's smart to live one's life according to what some other guy claims that gaia, god or the toothfairy said to do. Gotta agree with J0sh here.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by FS:
Wow, I can't believe I'm agreeing with FS on this one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by WillyTrombone:
secularism is faith. It is faith in logic and reason held up by observation and argument. Therefore all moralities are faith based. However, I would say that those which are open to discussion (rarely those usually defined as "faith-based") are superior. That is why one of the most religious philosophers gave the truely golden edict: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law." It is for the pure and simple reason that if your own behavior were to be the model of all others, any flaws would be reciprocated indefinately. It is not God's will that mankind behave but rather mankind's own duty upon himself.

---

secularism does not equal logic
logic does not equal faith
secularism does not equal faith

Many of the most secularist people I've encountered are also some of the most irrational, conversely, many of the most "religious" people I have encountered have been some of the most logical.

Atheists and secularists certainly do not have a monopoly on reason.

Nice quote from Kant's categorical imperative which happens to be in total accord with biblical scripture, i.e. Matthew 7:12. (Golden Rule) Hmmm.. maybe there is some logic in Faith after all?

[ 11-08-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

--------------------

Imagine for a minute that there is no reason. We're just here. We're born, we live and then we die. I don't think that entails living an empty, unfulfilled life. Quite the contrary perhaps. Recognise that your here for a short period of time and make the most of it. What happens afterwards is anyone guess. I'm not sure what I think about "life after death" but I'm in no hurry to find out, it's coming whether I like it or not.

Here are some other things I wonder about:

Does God just concern himself with humans?

Is a male dog that tries to hump another male dog an abomination?

When a killer whale kills a seal for sport and not for food, is it destined to burn in hell for all eternity?

When a lion kills newborn cubs then impregnates the female just so his lineage survives, is that OK?

When humans cull animals to prevent over-population is that OK even though it's the humans that are causing the over-population in the first place?

People discuss topics like "How can there be a God when there is so much human suffering?" I say screw the humans, what about the rest of the planet?!?!? If God really is the ruler of this domain then surely the same sets of rules apply to everyone and everything without exception?

Anyway, religion is and always will be an educational and riveting debate. My beliefs are by no means cast in stone. I cannot sit here and tell you that something won't happen in my life to completely change everything I believe in. I'm open minded and I am prepared to accept pretty much anything. I won't discount anything as being [im]possible...........I just want to see the evidence for myself.

--------------------

quote:

---

I’m sickened that so many people put their ridiculous religious beliefs in front of progress in science and medicine yet these same bible thumpers don’t care about the environment or the death of innocent people.

---

There was a decent conversation going on in this thread about what to base your decisions on. I'm not religious by any means. I was raised Catholic, but I haven't been to church in 25 years. I'm more of an agnostic now. Stem cell research and abortion are touchy, and intense, subjects. To me, it all boils down to when do you believe life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Personally, I don't buy the 'life begins when the fetus can live outside the womb' reasoning, it just doesn't make sense to me. And, as I believe taking a life is wrong, I believe abortion is wrong. Even though I'm not a 'religious nut'.

Embrionic (sp?) stem cell research is a bit trickier. I'm not one to want to 'get in the way of science'. Organ transplants? Fine. As long as the donor is dead. Use stem cells for research? Fine. As long as the donor is dead. (Adult stem cells are fine, too, just as a living donor can give a kidney). The tricky part is 'as long as the donor is dead'. I don't think anyone here would disagree that it is 'wrong' to kill a healthy adult to get his heart, for transplanting into someone else. (At least I hope so!). So, embrionic stem cells. An argument might be that abortion is legal, why not use the aborted fetus, it's dead anyway. That's a slippery slope. First, I believe abortion is wrong, so I have a problem with that on the face of it. Also, it's VERY conceivable that someone who's got a son or daughter that could be healed by embrionic stem cells (assuming that can happen in the future) would get pregnant just so they could abort the fetus. I know, I know, that would be illegal. But it's just too slippery of a slope for me. So, I don't think embrionic research is 'right'.

I am starting to believe in the two forces that I see at work all around us. Some call it God, I simply call it gravity.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wintermute:
[QB]secularism does not equal logic
logic does not equal faith
secularism does not equal faith

---

belief in nothing is still belief. belief in logic as an absolute and defining rule is also belief. it requires faith in logic to be a motivating factor in one's worldview. secularism, too, is a belief in worldly institutions. i disagree with each of your assertions. i believe you have misunderstood the purpose of my post.

--------------------

I'm afraid I simply cannot agree with that. It's ridiculous. Perhaps if you were a raped girl your opinion might be different? Luckiy for you and I we will never have to make such an important, life changing decision. You are placing the life of an unwanted, unborn baby BEFORE the life of the mother-to-be? So not only does the girl / woman have to deal with the trauma of rape, she has to deal with a full term pregnancy, all the mental issues of having to give the baby up for adoption after birth (because even though she didn't want it to begin that could change over the 9 months - I don't think that mothers should have to go through the decision making process while they are pregnant, I believe planned pregnancy is a much better route for everyone), the affect on her life if she decides to keep the baby, the possibility that she is not mentally ready to be a mother, etc. The list goes on. What if everything proves too much and she kills herself, does that just suck too?

I don't agree with using abortion as birth control but I think it has it's place.

Since this planet is already vastly over-populated I think it makes more sense to have LESS unwanted humans than MORE of them. I don't see the benefit in forcing people to bring unwanted life into this world. Not all pregnancies are planned. People make mistakes. The consequences of which are life changing. Imagine your life today if you could not correct ANY mistake you had made. NO second chances for anything.

You also said that life begins at conception. Who decides where the line is drawn? Just because a sperm and an egg meet does not guarantee life. Things can still go wrong e.g. accidents, miscarriages.

We're not going to agree on this topic but I just I had to respond to you "... rape...it sucks...still a life" comment. That sounded more than a little flippant and shallow to me.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by 20 20:
One more thing on abortion. I buy the argument that a woman's body is hers, she can do with it what she wants. But going back to when I believe life begins, a fetus, no matter how old, is not 'her' body. It's someone elses. When she got pregnant, she took on the responsiblity of caring for a 2nd human being. And on the 'what in the case of rape' question, yeah, it sucks, but it's still a life.

---

You sound like the priests that drove me from the Catholic Church. When she got pregnant, she took on the responsibility of caring for a 2nd human being. It surely isn't spontaneous -- she didn't do it on her own. What about his responsibility?

Until a man can carry and deliver a baby into the world, they will continue to have an incomplete and limited understanding of the responsibility for a 2nd human being.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Max:
"And on the 'what in the case of rape' question, yeah, it sucks, but it's still a life. "

I'm afraid I simply cannot agree with that. It's ridiculous. Perhaps if you were a raped girl your opinion might be different? Luckiy for you and I we will never have to make such an important, life changing decision. You are placing the life of an unwanted, unborn baby BEFORE the life of the mother-to-be? So not only does the girl / woman have to deal with the trauma of rape, she has to deal with a full term pregnancy, all the mental issues of having to give the baby up for adoption after birth (because even though she didn't want it to begin that could change over the 9 months - I don't think that mothers should have to go through the decision making process while they are pregnant, I believe planned pregnancy is a much better route for everyone), the affect on her life if she decides to keep the baby, the possibility that she is not mentally ready to be a mother, etc. The list goes on. What if everything proves too much and she kills herself, does that just suck too?

I don't agree with using abortion as birth control but I think it has it's place.

Since this planet is already vastly over-populated I think it makes more sense to have LESS unwanted humans than MORE of them. I don't see the benefit in forcing people to bring unwanted life into this world. Not all pregnancies are planned. People make mistakes. The consequences of which are life changing. Imagine your life today if you could not correct ANY mistake you had made. NO second chances for anything.

You also said that life begins at conception. Who decides where the line is drawn? Just because a sperm and an egg meet does not guarantee life. Things can still go wrong e.g. accidents, miscarriages.

We're not going to agree on this topic but I just I had to respond to you "... rape...it sucks...still a life" comment. That sounded more than a little flippant and shallow to me.

---

quote:

---

belief in nothing is still belief.

---

So THAT'S what you were trying to say. Redundant. You're stating that a belief in something is a belief. I can't argue with you there. How does that support your statement that logic is faith? An intelligent person is going to utilize logic insofar as its use can bare out some consistent results. Logic and its use is based on knowledge not faith. Only in the broadest sense of the word 'belief' can logic be considered faith, but then everything else could be considered faith as well which really doesn't get us anywhere.

quote:

---

i disagree with each of your assertions.

---

My syllogism was sound logic.

quote:

---

i believe you have misunderstood the purpose of my post.

---

No doubt. Maybe you should work on making the purpose of your post more discernible to the reader.

[ 11-09-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrsCyborg:
You sound like the priests that drove me from the Catholic Church. When she got pregnant, she took on the responsibility of caring for a 2nd human being. It surely isn't spontaneous -- she didn't do it on her own. What about his responsibility?

Until a man can carry and deliver a baby into the world, they will continue to have an incomplete and limited understanding of the responsibility for a 2nd human being.

As for rape, I hope none of the females in your life have to experience it and get a "yeah, honey, it sucks, but pull up your boot straps and take your prenatal vitamins. Theres a baby in there that needs to be taken care of. We'll worry about your needs later."

---

My comment on a womans responsiblity in no way removed the man from any responsiblity. Don't go preaching to me about Catholic priests, I grew up with them too. Again, when does life begin? That's the key. No, I'm not a woman. Yes, I'll never know what it's like to be pregnant. But what does that have to do with beleiving the taking of an innocent life is wrong? Mrs. Cy, when do YOU think life begins? Because that's the crux of the argument. If you think it begins at conception, how can you possibly agree with abortion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by 20 20:
I believe life begins at conception. Personally, I don't buy the 'life begins when the fetus can live outside the womb' reasoning, it just doesn't make sense to me. And, as I believe taking a life is wrong, I believe abortion is wrong. Even though I'm not a 'religious nut'.

---

Do you realize that if you believe life starts at conception, and that elective abortion is wrong, you also have to hold that the use of most chemical forms of contraception used by females are wrong as well?

Their secondary function (when ovulation prevention fails) is to prevent egg implantation into the endometrium (inner lining of womb). This causes an egg which may have been fertilized to be expelled. This means that female contraception causes abortion by your definition of when life starts.

I'm just curious. Are you prepared to be consistent and argue that the use of most forms of female contraception is wrong as well?

--------------------

quote:

---

Are you prepared to be consistent and argue that the use of most forms of female contraception is wrong as well?

---

Yes I am prepared to be consistant. And yes, any form of 'contraception' that 'eliminates' an embrio after successful fertilization, to me, is an 'abortion'. Day after pill? Abortion. Because, IMO, life begins at conception.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 20 20:
Just curious, to those who have taken umbrage at my stance, when, in your opinion, does 'life' begin? Where's "the line that can't be crossed"? Where's the line between abortion and 'killing'? At birth?

---

I took no umbrage to your stance. I think we're largely in agreement on this. I'll answer your question. This is what I believe.

I believe life begins at conception.

I believe that all abortion except for life-threatening pregancy is immoral. (killing in self-defense is universally accepted)

I believe abortion due to pregnancy as a result of rape/incest is murdering a human, and therefore immoral.

I believe that negative effects of a pregnancy on a woman's career or inconveniences on her life does not justify killing a human. - Similarly, I believe that the possibility of emotional anguish due to pregnancy as a result of rape/incest does not justify killing a human.

I believe that with effective treatment and the proper support, a pregnant rape victim can see their unborn child as someone uniquely special and worthwhile rather than a constant reminder of the violence committed against her.

--

These beliefs are based on my faith and are fundamental to me.

No-one is going to agree on the moment that life begins, and even so, they wouldn't place the same value on life. For these reasons I do not believe I can win a secular argument based on my beliefs, nor do I feel compelled to.

40 - Where do you stand on legislating morality? One can be pro-life and pro-choice. Do you think that despite your personal beliefs on the subject, that abortion should be legal?

[ 11-09-2004: Message edited by: Wintermute ]

--------------------

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by J0SH:
say you made a bet. if you lost, your friend gets to use your tools to build his house. you lose. say you want your tools back while your friend's still using them. whether it's morally right or wrong, don't you have a right to take back those tools if you want to?

---

Are you comparing an unborn child to a power saw? I'm not sure I understand your analogy. Could you restate it, or go ahead and draw comparisons?

--------------------

--------------------

I think abortion should be legal and no questions asked.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cacophonous:
I can't imagine forcing a women to keep the child from a rape/incest situation. That's just insane IMO.

I think abortion should be legal and no questions asked.

---

I understand that. On the surface, having to carry the child of someone who raped you is almost inconceivable, but then.. I think infanticide is pretty horrible as well. Which is more horrible, mental anguish that can be minimized through counceling or killing an innocent unborn child? The answer is going to vary and in part rely on what a woman believes about life including when it begins and whether or not it is to be considered sacred or especially valuable.

--------------------

quote:

---

40 - Where do you stand on legislating morality? One can be pro-life and pro-choice. Do you think that despite your personal beliefs on the subject, that abortion should be legal?

---

That's an interesting question. I don't believe if legislating morality. You wanna be gay? Be gay. You wanna screw 100 women who want to screw you? Have a ball. (Get it? )

However, legislating someones right to adversely affect another is valid. Stealing is illegal. Battery is illegal. Murder is illegal. No one has the right to take the life of another. And I agree with those. And to put that in the framework of abortion, since I believe life begins at conception, abortion is taking the life of another, and therefore should be illegal. That's not 'legislating morality', IMO, because of the effect abortion has on someone else, the embryo/fetus/baby.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 20 20:
However, legislating someones right to adversely affect another is valid. Stealing is illegal. Battery is illegal. Murder is illegal. No one has the right to take the life of another. And I agree with those. And to put that in the framework of abortion, since I believe life begins at conception, abortion is taking the life of another, and therefore should be illegal. That's not 'legislating morality', IMO, because of the effect abortion has on someone else, the embryo/fetus/baby.

---

Well stated.

--------------------

Anyway, as for abortion, as has been identified here, the kernel issue is when exactly human life begins. I don't think anyone would be in favor of killing a human baby, and I seriously doubt that most pro-abortion people would object to making abortions illegal the very moment that life begins. The fact of the matter is, there is no clear definition of life. (But of course, we all know it when we see it.) It is a perfect example of how beliefs and morality are tied so strongly together, and how both are critical within the definition of policy. We can loosely generalize that religiously faithful people tend to believe that life is started at conception and that nonfaithful (in the sense of faith toward some supernatural power) believe that life begins at some later time, as some sort of biological function. I have NEVER seen either side do anything but proselytize on the matter. I have not seen rigorous or conclusive evidence pointing to either side. If either side had some sort of empirical truth, it would been shown by now. But there is none and so the debate runs in terms of faith and belief and neither side gains any ground toward the other.

In a larger sense, that is what these past few weeks have been showing in America. Each party makes their own assertions agains tthe other, but neither speaks in terms of tangibles. So long as the beliefs held by one side are held to be false premise by the other, and vice versa, there can be no resolution in any given argument, and we end up with reports of red states vs blue states, hanging and dimpled chads, and political compaigns based on how the whole world will go to hell if you vote for the other guy when what we need is analysis of the feasibility of the continued growth of governmental agencies, the impact of current legislation of the rights of Americans to conduct themselves as a free people, and IMHO, a steadfast resolve in helping the world adapt to the post-Soviet socieconomic progression of globalization. None of those received coverage in this latest election. And that is a symptom of a trend that might just be the end of a great society.

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by 20 20:
Cac, I understand where you're coming from, and I respect everyone's right to their own opinion. I was just wondering when you think life begins? When is the taking of a life 'murder', and when isn't it?

---

Hey 40 - With abortion I think that normal guidelines should be followed which are based on when life begins/ends:

Our society has defined death as the loss of the cerebral EEG (electroencephalogram) pattern. Conversely, some scientists have thought that the acquisition of the human EEG (at about 27 weeks) be defined as when a human life has begun.

So I believe that we should allow abortion if it takes place within the first 27 weeks...

--------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by WillyTrombone:
WM - first off, my statement was clear. reader error is more a sign of differing perspective than unsound reasoning by either party involved. The point of the Kant quote is that true morality can be defined specifically and precisely outside the context of religion, without dependence on nonsecular entities. As for the implicit condescention in your stinger toward me, it's completely unnecessary and quite telling of what you've become in the past few years. I once enjoyed the occasional intelligent banter with you. You points and counterpoints often proved insightful and thought provoking. However, lately, that has been missing and it seems I recognize you only in name. That is unfortunate. I actually garnered quite a bit of respect for you back at f3d.

---

We communicate using the same tools, and yet you have attributed an alleged misunderstanding to reader error rather than accept even in politeness the slightest blame. I have done no more no less in replying in like manner by accepting no blame. For the record, I never accused you of having unsound reasoning. I only stated that my own syllogism was sound logic which you gave no reason for disagreeing with...

Your gush about condescention and the shocking realization of the monster I've become doesn't bother me. Your dramatic tales of hero worship lost do not move me. All diplomacy asside, your intelligence does not come through in print lately. I don't know the cause, but I will return the favor by saying that you have changed.

--------------------