Keyes
-
Brit wrote: Has Alan Keyes always been this irrational I don't think it can be considered irrational, but yes he has never been afraid to take on the new-age-secular-moral-agenda. That is why he has never won public office - he has something to piss everyone off. Brit wrote: ( Does that mean we should prevent old people and infertile couples from marrying - because those would be marriages "based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism"? If an elderly couple or an infertile couple (heterosexuals all) were to adopt children than it would be a marriage with children as traditionally defined by our civilization. That institution is not broken and does not need to be fixed. We need some new definition of 'civil union' to give a legal status to those who do not fit in traditional definitions of marriage. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: I don't think it can be considered irrational, but yes he has never been afraid to take on the new-age-secular-moral-agenda. That is why he has never won public office - he has something to piss everyone off. His method of arguing against gay marriage is irrational because his argument also includes a whole lot of people that he (and most everyone else) wouldn't call "selfish hedonists". If he wants to argue against gay marriage, fine. But the way he does it makes me step back and say, "Good God! This is his how his decision making process works -- and he wants to be a leader?" The fact that his decision making process seems to be so poor and his opinions don't seem fully thought-through is the first reason I wouldn't vote for him -- nevermind the "he has never been afraid to take on the new-age-secular-moral-agenda" and "piss people off" stuff. [Edit] In addition to Wjousts comment - (why doesn't adoption legitimize gay marriage in the same way that it legitimizes elderly and infertile couples?) - I would be curious to know how Keyes argument stands up when medical technology makes it possible for gay couples to have their own children. If that sounds far-fetched, take a look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3643847.stm[^]. Even if this technology were widely available to people, we both know that it wouldn't change anyone's view of gay marriage because people's views on gay marriage have nothing to do with "marriage as a union exclusively for procreation". Everyone already knows that his argument falls flat. The only people who will attempt to defend him are people who are attempting to defend the implications of his argument (stopping gay marriage). His argument itself is obviously flawed. [\Edit] ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
-
Brit wrote: Does that mean we should prevent old people and infertile couples from marrying Or even using birth control! Unless you're "doing it" to instantiate a new child object, it's hedonism!!! Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
Is it "child object" or "child process"? After all, the best way to produce a child process is to
fork. cheers, Chris Maunder -
Gary Kirkham wrote: what part do you agree/disagree with how about 5: "There is no coincidence between the 9/11 attacks and abortions". though i agree with what you actually wrote, Keyes said it wasn't a coincidence (ie. he said one follows from the other) and i'm assuming you mean to agree with him. if he sees 9/11 as a reasonable punishment* for our own moral and religious shortcomings... well, he'll find he has some allies in al-Q. --- * - or as something the US even deserves Software | Cleek
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'm assuming you mean to agree with him No, I didn't say that. However, I assume that you think that it is kooky (my word) to think that it wasn't a coincidence and that your reasoning is based on the fact that that you are an atheist (again just assuming). To someone who believes in God, the notion that God would allow judgment to come upon a nation is not kooky at all. The Bible is chock full of instances where God has allowed ungodly nations to have victory over Israel as a judgment upon Israel. Whether or not the 9/11 attacks was God's judgment on the USA for abortion, or anything else, remains for God to know and say. I don't agree or disagree with him; I just don't think that his believing it is, in any way, kooky. Can I assume that you agree with the other four statements? :) Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Is it "child object" or "child process"? After all, the best way to produce a child process is to
fork. cheers, Chris MaunderChris Maunder wrote: After all, the best way to produce a child process is to fork. ROTF!!! Marc MyXaml Advanced Unit Testing
-
I agree absolutely with all of that. However, some things, such as marriage, have been 'state business' for a long time and for reasons that were critical to the maintenance of a civil society, so it is kind of late to say that the state has no role to play in the definition. (I agree completely though that the federal government has no business involving itself and I oppose Bush's amendemtn proposal) However, to a large extent this has all been brought on by the 'gay rights movement' itself, taking an ever more vociferous opposition to virtually anything that one might define as 'traditional culture'. When they do that, they have to expect a fight - opposition of some kind. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
to a large extent this has all been brought on by the 'gay rights movement' itself, taking an ever more vociferous opposition to virtually anything that one might define as 'traditional culture' Definitely with you there. While I personally may not approve or choose the lifestyle for myself, I'm not going to get overly bent out of shape with other's decision either. It's a free country, what you do with other consenting adults is your business. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned
-
While i happen to agree with him, since when has this country been against selfish hedonism? We have enough entertainment industries available to keep us from ever needing to stop and think, drugs and porn rarely more than a few minutes drive away, and enough opportunities to be a glutton that our own restaurant chains call us fat. We are the fucking nation of selfish hedonism. As for Keyes being saved from a life of picking cotton by the Declaration of Independence... for all its idealistic language, that document kept a lot of people picking cotton against their will here in the US, long after the Brits had abolished slavery across their empire. Keyes, it seems, would do well to keep his mouth shut.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan...Shog9 wrote: We are the fucking nation of selfish hedonism. Apparently it is also a nation of juvenile vulgarities. Just curious, why do you feel the need to use them? Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Shog9 wrote: As for Keyes being saved from a life of picking cotton by the Declaration of Independence... for all its idealistic language, that document kept a lot of people picking cotton against their will here in the US, long after the Brits had abolished slavery across their empire. Keyes, it seems, would do well to keep his mouth shut. Oh, come one, that's rediculous. Without the reasoning embodied within the Declaration of Independence the abolitionists movement would have been intellectually sterile. The primitive economic conditions of the late colonial and early federal eras were what kept slavery a viable institution for so long, for pete's sake. Just as soon as the North had developed a robust capitalistic system, the meaning inherent in the founding documents could be applied without fear of bringing on a distructive economic recession (except in the South, of course, which was lagging behind economically). This brought on the "second" American revolution which resulted in the American Civil War. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Don't get me wrong - i'm all for the reasoning in the declaration. I firmly believe that all mankind is created equal, and furthermore consider creation something that happens a fair bit prior to birth. But social change comes not from ideals or declarations - it comes from people who take them to heart, who follow and promote them. It is possible there were many slaveowners at the time of the declaration and after who believed themselves to be no more human than those laboring for them... but it is certain that this country followed its liberating declaration with many years denying those who were in greatest need of it. As for the North... brutal working conditions for immigrants took many more years of strife and strikes to overcome. Greed trumps idealism everywhere.
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan... -
Shog9 wrote: We are the fucking nation of selfish hedonism. Apparently it is also a nation of juvenile vulgarities. Just curious, why do you feel the need to use them? Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
Chris Losinger wrote: and i'm assuming you mean to agree with him No, I didn't say that. However, I assume that you think that it is kooky (my word) to think that it wasn't a coincidence and that your reasoning is based on the fact that that you are an atheist (again just assuming). To someone who believes in God, the notion that God would allow judgment to come upon a nation is not kooky at all. The Bible is chock full of instances where God has allowed ungodly nations to have victory over Israel as a judgment upon Israel. Whether or not the 9/11 attacks was God's judgment on the USA for abortion, or anything else, remains for God to know and say. I don't agree or disagree with him; I just don't think that his believing it is, in any way, kooky. Can I assume that you agree with the other four statements? :) Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote: I don't agree or disagree with him; I just don't think that his believing it is, in any way kooky. of course it's kooky: he's claiming he knows that god punished us because of abortion; that's pretty specific; out of all the millions of things he could have chosen, it was abortion. how the F' can Keyes know that ? he can't - as you just said. no, he's a simple demagogue who picked 9/11 as a handy way to whip up the emotions and fears of his audience. Gary Kirkham wrote: Can I assume that you agree with the other four statements? up to a point, yes. #4 is where it gets tricky. and i'd rather not have that debate here because i honestly don't have a firm position on it either way. Software | Cleek
-
Shog9 wrote: We are the fucking nation of selfish hedonism. Apparently it is also a nation of juvenile vulgarities. Just curious, why do you feel the need to use them? Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote: Apparently it is also a nation of juvenile vulgarities. Just curious, why do you feel the need to use them? You could ask Bush or Cheney the same question (not that you'd question your God[s]). In fact, I'm sure you could even ask yourself the same question. Don't even try to say you haven't used vulgarities, and if you have, don't even bother replying to this. With every post, it seems you are more and more of a hypocrit. I use them because they offer a shock value, and a whole lot of emphasis. Of course, it all depends on the people you are talking to. I wouldn't be that offensive if I was running for president and was in front of a large group of people, or if I was talking with a senator, but those are just my standards. I'm not a good christian like bush or cheney. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I don't think it can be considered irrational, but yes he has never been afraid to take on the new-age-secular-moral-agenda. That is why he has never won public office - he has something to piss everyone off. His method of arguing against gay marriage is irrational because his argument also includes a whole lot of people that he (and most everyone else) wouldn't call "selfish hedonists". If he wants to argue against gay marriage, fine. But the way he does it makes me step back and say, "Good God! This is his how his decision making process works -- and he wants to be a leader?" The fact that his decision making process seems to be so poor and his opinions don't seem fully thought-through is the first reason I wouldn't vote for him -- nevermind the "he has never been afraid to take on the new-age-secular-moral-agenda" and "piss people off" stuff. [Edit] In addition to Wjousts comment - (why doesn't adoption legitimize gay marriage in the same way that it legitimizes elderly and infertile couples?) - I would be curious to know how Keyes argument stands up when medical technology makes it possible for gay couples to have their own children. If that sounds far-fetched, take a look at this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3643847.stm[^]. Even if this technology were widely available to people, we both know that it wouldn't change anyone's view of gay marriage because people's views on gay marriage have nothing to do with "marriage as a union exclusively for procreation". Everyone already knows that his argument falls flat. The only people who will attempt to defend him are people who are attempting to defend the implications of his argument (stopping gay marriage). His argument itself is obviously flawed. [\Edit] ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
I simply disagree. It is perfectly reasonable to say that marriage is about protecting children, the product of procreation, therefore marriage is about procreation. Hedonistic or not, marriage of infertile or elderly couples does not require a redefinition of marriage, hence such unions do not represent a threat to marriage from hedonistic forces. The hedonism of homosexuality does represent such a threat because it does reguire such a redefinition - marriage no longer between a man and a woman. It requires changing what marriage is strictly for hedonistic reasons. I don't think there is anything illogical about that at all. (That is not to say I agree with it, however). It is absolutely about stopping "gay marriage", I don't see anyone saying otherwise. Gay's have exactly the same marriage rights that everyone else does - as long as it is to someone of the opposite sex. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: Apparently it is also a nation of juvenile vulgarities. Just curious, why do you feel the need to use them? You could ask Bush or Cheney the same question (not that you'd question your God[s]). In fact, I'm sure you could even ask yourself the same question. Don't even try to say you haven't used vulgarities, and if you have, don't even bother replying to this. With every post, it seems you are more and more of a hypocrit. I use them because they offer a shock value, and a whole lot of emphasis. Of course, it all depends on the people you are talking to. I wouldn't be that offensive if I was running for president and was in front of a large group of people, or if I was talking with a senator, but those are just my standards. I'm not a good christian like bush or cheney. I still haven't found what I'm lookin' for - U2
Doesn't it hurt when your knee jerks up and hits you in the chin like that? I`m SO there wrote: Don't even try to say you haven't used vulgarities Well sure I have, back when I was a juvenile trying to shock someone. But then I grew up, found Jesus, and now I no longer feel the need to be vulgar...it is no longer consistent with who I am. How does that make me a hypocrite? Is me asking someone not to touch a hot iron hypocritical, if I have touched one before, yet no longer do so? Maybe you need to look up the word. Here is an example of hypocracy: I`m SO there wrote: You could ask Bush or Cheney the same question Were you not the same one that was ranting about people changing the subject? I wasn't talking about Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Edwards or politics in general or you directly. I`m SO there wrote: I'm not a good christian Are you one at all? What is a good Christian? Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
-
I am curious, what part do you agree/disagree with: 1) 9/11 terrorists == evil 2) 9/11 terrorists took innocent human life 3) millions of abortions have taken place in USA 4) unborn babies == innocent human life 5) There is no coincidence between the 9/11 attacks and abortions. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
What is an "unborn baby"?? For me, "Baby" means by definition there was a birth. Before the birth, it isn't a baby, it's first an embryo, then a fetus. Is the english language different there? :confused:
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
-
What is an "unborn baby"?? For me, "Baby" means by definition there was a birth. Before the birth, it isn't a baby, it's first an embryo, then a fetus. Is the english language different there? :confused:
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
When you say 'unborn baby' you attach a lot of emotions to the label. It's a bit like an infamous US produced 'documentary' that some religious Danish schools used to show the children in the early 90's. The producers had attached screams as sound effects to 14 days old fetuses :wtf: . Abortion is a sensitive subject, but like all other important decisions it should be handled with respect and seriousness. Emotions are fine on the personal level, but when it comes to creating laws that inflicts other people, you have to use facts and hard science. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Has Alan Keyes always been this irrational, or has his run for Illinois senator made him even moreso? Alan Keyes, the Republican candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat in Illinois, said Tuesday that Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter Mary is a "selfish hedonist" because she is a lesbian. His comments came during an interview with SIRIUS satellite radio. Keyes said: "The essence of ... family life remains procreation. If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principal excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism." Asked whether that meant Mary Cheney "is a selfish hedonist," Keyes said: "That goes by definition. Of course she is." Link[^] ( Does that mean we should prevent old people and infertile couples from marrying - because those would be marriages "based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism"? ) "[Obama] has taken the slaveholder's position." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1190195/posts[^] (For those who don't know, both Keyes and Obama are black.) ----------------------------------------------------- Bush To Iraqi Militants: 'Please Stop Bringing It On' - The Onion "Moore's prominent presence in the news brings to light some serious questions, such as 'Can't he at least try to look presentable?'" - The Onion
Brit wrote: (For those who don't know, both Keyes and Obama are black.) And? Isn't that sad that in a democracy promoting human rights, skin colour could be considered as relevant?
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
-
Doesn't it hurt when your knee jerks up and hits you in the chin like that? I`m SO there wrote: Don't even try to say you haven't used vulgarities Well sure I have, back when I was a juvenile trying to shock someone. But then I grew up, found Jesus, and now I no longer feel the need to be vulgar...it is no longer consistent with who I am. How does that make me a hypocrite? Is me asking someone not to touch a hot iron hypocritical, if I have touched one before, yet no longer do so? Maybe you need to look up the word. Here is an example of hypocracy: I`m SO there wrote: You could ask Bush or Cheney the same question Were you not the same one that was ranting about people changing the subject? I wasn't talking about Bush or Cheney or Kerry or Edwards or politics in general or you directly. I`m SO there wrote: I'm not a good christian Are you one at all? What is a good Christian? Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read
Gary Kirkham wrote: What is a good Christian? An oxymoron? "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
Wjousts wrote: So why can homosexual couples adopt children and get away from the alledged "selfish hedonism". Apparently because they are homosexual. I will not pretend to defend that reasoning, except to say that, IMO, children deserve a mom and a dad, male and female. I think that arrangement provides a child with a balanced world view that a homosexual couple cannot provide. Might some homosexuals make better parents, than some heterosexuals? I don't doubt it. But I think that 'normalizing' that sort of a family environment will ultimately do more harm than good. "Benedict Arnold was a war hero too."
Stan Shannon wrote: children deserve a mom and a dad Agreed, but by that reasoning, it would be just as logical to either ban separations, or take away children from separated parents and put them in 'real' families. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
When you say 'unborn baby' you attach a lot of emotions to the label. It's a bit like an infamous US produced 'documentary' that some religious Danish schools used to show the children in the early 90's. The producers had attached screams as sound effects to 14 days old fetuses :wtf: . Abortion is a sensitive subject, but like all other important decisions it should be handled with respect and seriousness. Emotions are fine on the personal level, but when it comes to creating laws that inflicts other people, you have to use facts and hard science. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
jan larsen wrote: When you say 'unborn baby' you attach a lot of emotions to the label. That's what I'm suspecting. I wonder if spermatozoïds are unborn half-babies, and if male masturbation with ejaculation should then be considered as a mass murder or a genocide? jan larsen wrote: when it comes to creating laws that inflicts other people, you have to use facts and hard science. I would tend to agree, but I also believe that in such a case you can't negate the moral arguments.
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
-
jan larsen wrote: When you say 'unborn baby' you attach a lot of emotions to the label. That's what I'm suspecting. I wonder if spermatozoïds are unborn half-babies, and if male masturbation with ejaculation should then be considered as a mass murder or a genocide? jan larsen wrote: when it comes to creating laws that inflicts other people, you have to use facts and hard science. I would tend to agree, but I also believe that in such a case you can't negate the moral arguments.
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
KaЯl wrote: I would tend to agree, but I also believe that in such a case you can't negate the moral arguments. Agreed, but those moral arguments should be based on facts. "After all it's just text at the end of the day. - Colin Davies "For example, when a VB programmer comes to my house, they may say 'does your pool need cleaning, sir ?' " - Christian Graus
-
What is an "unborn baby"?? For me, "Baby" means by definition there was a birth. Before the birth, it isn't a baby, it's first an embryo, then a fetus. Is the english language different there? :confused:
Tu tues une baleine, t'auras les écolos, t'auras Greenpeace, t'auras le commandant Cousteau sur le dos! Mais décime un banc de sardines, j'aime autant te dire qu'on t'aidera à les mettre en boîte!
KaЯl wrote: For me, "Baby" means by definition there was a birth. Whatever you choose to call it the important thing is, does it represent innocent human life? I say it does. Even the legal system can't be consistent...abortion is OK (saying it is not life)...kill a pregnant woman and get charged with double murder (saying it is life). Arguing about the English language is just a distraction from the real issue. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose. - Jim Elliot Me blog, You read