WOOHOOO!!!! Looks like I caught me a fish!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, thank you for your reply, and thank you for the PERSONAL insults, I am truly honored…
tellyourkidstogetarealjob wrote: I hope you're drunk. The thought of my post being misread then regurgitated like that by a sober man is truly frightening.
Someone with so much anger is unlikely to change but I'll have a go...
Sorry to scare you but yes I was 100% sober at the time of my last post, Perhaps a little tiered, but in a stable state of mind… I am also sorry to give you the impression than I am filled with anger, I may be frustrated by the way the world turns these days; but this should not be mistaken for anger, furthermore the whole point of having a debate (in my mind) is to learn the other sides of an issue and hopefully grow from them, As I stated at the end of my last post give me a convincing argument and I WILL change, I just haven’t seen any yet…
tellyourkidstogetarealjob wrote: I'll type slowly so you can keep up.
And thank you for typing slowly, my mom does that for me to, your so kind ….
tellyourkidstogetarealjob wrote:
Unlike government of course.
***
I'm incredulous. Seriously? You really believe that?
Are you dating a Simon Fraser University professor? That's almost childish. The only way you could believe that is if you've never studied anything about history and understand little of what the media tells you.
Yes just like governments, the argument I was trying to make was that modern government is a far more active at revising laws as society and the economy require, compared to religion which is very stagnant; IE changes take a LONG time to be applied and in the in term there is often a lot of ancillary damage that occurs. For example women in the church, still to this day there are no female priests in the Catholic church (that I know of) because the stagnant traditions that placed them at a lower level than man. I will not harp on this argument as I hope my point is seen, but if you would like I will elaborate on it further…
Oh and, no actually she isn’t a professor yet, she is a grad student and she is at Uvic not SFU.
Id like to think that I have understood what I have studied in history, and I have to admit I do take media with a few grains of salt; but id like you to show me how it is that I have misinterpreted what I have learnt, because this IS the conclusion that I am drawing by it; what do you see?
Unlike "enlightened" people who followed what was written in Mein Kampf seventy years ago and Stalin who believed in Marx's Communist Manifesto.
These people gave us the most destructive war in history.
Remember, just like Stalin and Hitler if you go too far to the left you end up on the right. The actions and oppression are the same only the justification is different.
EEERrrrrrr….. Ok…….. ahhhh…. Well not too sure where to start on that one… I think you are using my comment on enlightenment out of context,
We have LAWS and we have a code of conduct that both the citizenry and the public servants are meant to follow, All I am stating is simply by carrying out the actions in progress we (in my mind) are walking backwards, towards unenlightenment,
This was referring to the idea that totally destroying our laws to replace them with “knee jerk” legislation is in my mind a step backwards. I think we are getting enough off topic as it is to not have a discussion on Hitler and Stalin, but once again I would like to know how you feel that modern liberalism is more restrictive than modern conservatism. Please understand that I am drawing a difference between modern and contemporary, seeing as how in the last 10 years conservatism has changed so much, IE the differences between a democracy vs a Republic…. (A discussion for a later date…)
I'm not. Not at all. In fact, in you'd taken the time to think instead of knee-jerk react you would have realized my post wasn't about religion.
It's about the protecting the institutions you drivel on about from people who may, in a few instances, be so extreme as to not care about anything other than satisfying their own hate.
Ok, well then I must have misread your post I was under the impression that you were making a connection between Islam and violence. However the ideals of freedom of thought and freedom of speech that at least I hold very close to my heart make me think that if this fellow wants to destroy my culture, he is free to think it, he is free to speech it, and he is even free to try to destroy it by legal means, IE get elected and legislate new laws… the only time that I feel we as a society have the right to take action is the MOMENT he starts to do something like build a bomb, or shoot someone etc… prior to those actions he (in my mind) should not be touched…. Perhaps monitored closely within the bounds of the law, but nothing beyond…
NOW I am totally aware that this could be considered akin to leaving our pants down, and that it is a dangerous path to tread because it leaves us far more vunrable, but as I have said before, I PERSOALLY feel that the risk is worth the benefit of free expression… Im sure you disagree with this, then again that is your right just as much as it is my right to disagree with you…
Whether someone chooses a religion or atheism or agnosticism is no concern to me and, unlike you, I don't intolerantly condemn their choice.
Wow, well just to clarify, I do not think I am being intolerant, and I do not condemn anyone’s choices, people choose what is right for them, and I have no right to tell them NOT to follow it nor would I, and If I ever do start acting that way I give you full permission to shoot me because that is not a mentality that I ever want to have… What I stated was “In my opinion.” Meaning that it was MY belief, and this is what I felt about topic A, B etc…. as per the last post, my ideas are no better or worse than someone else’s, they are simply my thoughts… Just because I do not agree with someone’s choice does not mean that I hate them, nor does it mean that I will give them any less respect, I simply will if asked make my arguments from my point of view…
Have you ever heard of Natural Law? How about Ethics? These are not religious concepts. They mean a little more than strict interpretation of laws.
Um, yes I have heard of Natural Law as well as Ethics, both of these concepts are used heavily in Law,
The following are taken from my old dusty political theory text;
Natural Law Ethical Theory: the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings or the cosmos in general.
Natural Law Legal Theory: the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.
in fact a lot of Legal theory is based from Natural law when Stoics first wrote about the idea of natural law, these ideals were eventually very much integrated into the Roman legal theory, parts of which are still in use today; Sorry I was under the impression that much of Christianity was actually modeled after the theories of Natural law, hence the origins of “Divine law” now my history is a bit shaky on this last one, so if there is a theologiest out in the crowd id like any corrections you can give on this interpretation…
If by "natural evolution of social order" you mean honouring the people who fought WWII
No, that is not what I meant, what I meant by the natural evolution of social order was in reference to the argument that modern social order evolved out of religion, and that the legislative process was superior in efficiency to the use of old idealism. For example if we take an examination of middle eastern cultures and their propensity against eating certain forms of meat; many social archeologists feel that many of these religious rules were the result of people dying from parasites that were rampant in the food. But now in the modern world when safe meat is available, the religion still forbids it out of tradition, but the original reason for the implementation of the rules against eating meat are no longer valid. Where is in a culture truly run via active and evolving social rules would be able to adjust as technology adjusted…
So take a blank example, if there is a tribe of people and they find more often than not anyone who wanders into the “dark swamp” gets sick and dies it is quite easy to see how the “dark swamp” became the “forbidden swamp” because the Flying Spaghetti Monster kills all who trespass. Now with the advent of malaria medication would it still make sense to avoid crossing the swamp? ? ?
That is what the natural evolution of social order was referring too.
not having the guts to even cast a vote to rid the country of a blatantly corrupt political party based on argument that it, "costs too much", or, "who wants a winter election", or, "the other guy has a secret agenda", then I guess I'm too old-fashioned for the "enlightened" such as yourself.
Oh believe me I vote in all elections, (I am finishing my double major in PoliSci and Econ and the moment, I would be VERY upset with myself if I missed an election…)
Now as we are so WAY off topic to begin and I am sure there are lots of other places to debate this, I will be short; I have no problem with calling an election if enough people are pissed to justify it, HOWEVER I would like to point out that ALL political parties are corrupt, Good old John A Macdonald was a conservative as I recall from Canadian history, and HIS little scandal was way bigger than what the libs were involved with; as such I kinda expect there to be corruption regardless, it’s a fact of life, just as a store works into its yearly budget, the expected loss from theft, I think we have to do the same in politics, it’s a fact of life and it’s a cost of doing business… What I am more concerned about is the overall effectiveness of a government how have they managed to perform as related to the economy, social health, environment etc… Now im not too sure what “secret agenda” stuff your talking about, but just remember no matter who takes their place, they too will lie, cheat, and steal; the only questions are what will they do to the economy, to social order, and what will they do in foreign affairs….
Finally on this point. One day, some syphilitic tart with poor taste may agree to breed with you. If she then takes off a few years later with your kids, your house, your parents heirlooms, your car and maybe even your best friend you'll end up in family court and you'll get a short, sharp lesson in just how your "laws and code of conduct" aren't worth the paper they're written on. The only thing that'll matter is she has a snatch between her legs and as a male you don't exist, except as a support payment, no matter how hard you try to do the right thing.
If you don't comprehend the last paragraph there's lots of men in this site that do. Don't write anything, please. Just wait a few years.
Well then, I sense some anger here, I take it you had a wife? Who you consider to be a syphilitic tart (Don’t forget to finish your Antibiotics, you don’t want to pass that on to anyone else…) well man, I am sorry you had an experience like that, no thankfully I have NOT experienced such things in life yet and as I stated before what we have is by no means perfect, but then again in some cultures if we didn’t have the laws that we have today, and you told us you had syphilis you may well have been stoned; so once again I do think it is better than the alternative…
And as for me breeding, your in luck, my “Personal Opinion” is that in this day and age breeders are irresponsible for the long run survival of the species and of the planet. There are entirely too many people on this world, consuming far too many resources; If we want long term solutions to energy, pollution etc… it may be wise to examine ways of reducing the number of children born, and perhaps drop our global population to 5-10% of what it is now over the next 100 years… I would rather not rely on war, famine and disease to keep the population in check, I think a more proactive examination into birthrates may be a possible solution.
Although like all people I do have an instinctual desire to have children my moral code tells me that such actions would be far too selfish, (once again an argument against religion, IE Mormonism breed, breed, breed… this had a point when the west was being settled, IE when the religion developed, but now today; I feel this irresponsible lifestyle is very detrimental to our long term survival…) So in short I have decided to never have kids, and who ever I Mary, will have to have the same mentality as I on this subject… Granted she could still give me syphilis, and 1/2 my assets, but im also hoping to find someone who is well employed and is worth the same financially as I; I would rather have an equal as a partner… But thank you for your warning, I see that it IS possible to find the wrong partner…
Oh and I would never burn a book, even if it was totally against what I thought, it is knowledge, plain and simple; and therefore contributes to the global social good….
Anyway there is my UBER long rant, to which I hope to get some answers from you tellyourkidstogetarealjob,
And im sure iv pissed off a LOT of other people out there, but before anyone starts brining the big guns out, I would like to restate, these are all personal opinions, and by no means am I saying they are right, they are simply how I look on the above situations, I do not give anyone any less respect if they are my age and having kids, or if they practice any religion, or even if they are a Nazi (Granted I would be disinclined to be friends with them.) People do what THEY think is right, and I do NOT have to right to tell them to stop; all I can do is “speak my truth quietly and clearly and listen to theirs,”
THE END…
I have way too much time on my hands don’t I….
-walk
and take him to Auschwitz 
ohhh woops I mean a secret facility where they will use “HCI, Highly Coercive interrogation techniques” and then fly him again to a puppet country where he will mysteriously die strapped to a chair with no seat… 
”
