raven_gaurd0

I'm getting sick of this flaming, and I'll be damned if you keep on spitting in the faces of so many people, and I take it lying down. Religion hasn't started a legitimate war in seven hundred years. Started. If you have a counterexample, please say so. (FYI, don't bring up War on Terror. Jihad is a term defined for a Muslim man to DEFEND his faith, not impose it on others or 'eradicate infidels'.) Religion on a whole has caused 2,000,000X more peace than it has war. Flamers and asshats like you are the people that end up like Hitler; biased and hating towards a religious group because you were fed incorrect information or were too judgemental on biased evidence.

HIPPIE! lol. Just kidding, mate. OK, let's first examine a few fundamental facts about the nature of mankind to prove your second part of the statement wrong. "If there is world peace, why bother with wars?" [1] states things about war. Man NATURALLY warred with one another without common power. And who is to say that the common power in question is any less apt to get into fights and wars with other leaders of the world? After all, above the leader of a country, there is no other mortal Power on earth that they can listen to for surefire guidance. (It is possible that God might speak to them, but seeing as this isn't related, we'll disregard the possibility) so isn't it natural that people will always get into war? Besides, what on earth could ever CAUSE world peace? There will always be fighting over limited resources. Economic principles of scarcity says so. And if a dictator takes over the entire world, there will be rebels and insurgents to declare war upon him. There will NEVER be world peace. EVER. Also, a remarkably large amount of times, Peace is nothing but a funny little word that can't be used. So is diplomacy. You think, during WWII, that we should have marched up to Hitler's house and 'talked it all over' with him and that we would somehow magically abolish his ten year reign of terror, or make him let go of the millions of people he was killing? Or make him simply forget his world conquest? Do you believe for half a second that we ever could have deterred his mad quest in the first place? I don't think so. Too many of these people who start wars have too much of a negative history, and talking simply won't negate it.

I'm with brain-dude here. While it was a lovely poetic statement, the heart frankly does nothing. If I had written it, I would have identified the two sections of brain, one that controls emotion, the other that controls pure logical thought supported by quantitative data, then gone from there. But in your statement, I believe that the brain does all decisions for your body. In the Emotion v. Quantitative data, I'm still with the brain, primarily because it's the powerhouse for all logic in you, and if you were acting on pure emotion, you turn into a fool. (Just look at a lot of women in todays acting world - acting with logic and only with emotion.)

Glad to see your believing things before they're stone fact - as you put it. And we ask how people could think the world was flat 600 years ago. StrOwez's your answer. So you're honestly telling me that you could "turn" gay right now? No? Then it's not a choice. I accept your opinion, you can accept mine. I don't discriminate openly against homosexuals, them sticking their bodily organ into other same sexed humans is their own business - I don't care what they do in private. Though I am allowed to have an opinion. Wow. Rather than actually backing up your opinion, you started personally attacking me. Questioning my sexuality, making fun of my name, then telling me to get therapy. Because no one has EVER thought of that before. :roll: And even if it was a choice, I'd still choose to be gay, without second thought. Coming out has really helped me distinguish my actual friends. [Flames were edited out -BlueLancer] Talk for yourself hypocrite. Its an opinion I have no reason to back it up, neither do I care enough about homosexuality to want to try and convince a gay guy that he's made a choice. And I'm not surprised in the slightest, I hadn't even known that you were gay and just by judging from your gay pride hate-felt earlier post (which bluelancer had to sensor) I could tell straight away that you were gay. Go away seriously, sort out your own problems in life instead of attacking me when I hadn't even attacked you in the first place - especially considering it was my own personal opinion. You never attacked me?... How about you take a step down off of that pedestal and think about what your original post was. And you have no reason to back your opinion up? So you basically came here just to say that gays made a choice, and that anything else is wrong, even if there's proof. How about you crawl back under that rock. -.- Too many quotations! How 'bout YOU go check out this and get yourself educated so you don't sound like an arrogant moron (which you do right now. Trust me, I'd know :anxious: ) You can't be stating things like that without proof, especially since: A: You're neither right nor wrong, so you can't state either. B: This is the wrong thread for this C: Without any proof over such a controversial issue, I can disregard your opinion. So can eeeverybody else. EDIT: P.S. Dude, I never saw any form of attack in anybody's argument. Hell, he was even putting you on even ground by saying it's your opinion, and I have my own, too. You threw the first punch, so don't whine (unless he edited it out or something, or a mod did, but I doubt it )

See, I always thought people were given the right to revolt if the government was unacceptable. Maybe that wasn't Locke, though....unless you're talking about actual government instead of Lockean theory. That would be Thoreau. He was more of an anarchist, but his belief that the people have the right to overthrow a corrupt or unacceptable government is widely accepted. Locke also stated it...I think it was Locke's Social Contract, Section 171 to be precise. :D But yes, society formed out of needs of humans. Sometimes we need to think for the good of society over the good of an individual. But N0m An0r is also right in the sense that it's illogical today. Government has simply evolved too much. And for all you other people talking about inciting hateful posts, you're kinda getting off topic. -.-

They didn't even ARREST THEM. Your rights are read when you are ARRESTED. What he said. Frankly, believe it or not, but this isn't an out of the norm kind of things. Operating on minimum intel, you have to be careful...or people can get hurt.

I love that stage! I lived it for like, a day. It made me laugh when I looked back. Yeah, the only society that has ever been in a state of near Anarchy was...Rome? Even they didn't make it all the way, but once the people began to ignore the government, things got out of control.

...Yeah I'm sorry, I'm just pro-Bush and I could hear a sniper barrel warming up...PROBABLY unrelated. But Reagan was totally cool, and I don't even think a Democrat can disagree with that. I mean, I think JFK was cool, and I'm hardcore Republican. And yeah...even back in '85 there were still 600+ members of Congress. There's a lot of foolproofing to be done. For some reason I thought that we were debating a new law, but meh... :uhh:

I'm getting sick of hearing the word 'gay' on this RuneScape forum. I mean, seriously..the game is like, for seven to thirteen year olds. Or at least that was the intent when it was made (I'm guessing, so don't hold it to me.) Donated blood is frozen, tested, goes through a lot of procedures, but HIV/AIDS is a unpredictable virus. The fact that some people don't show symptoms or it becomes untracable for UP to a few years makes it a wildcat guess that could result in suing, death, and controversy. The gays need to accept the consequences of their actions. If they choose to have gay sex and dramatically increase their chances of contracting HIV, that's fine. But then don't expect to be able to donate blood when it is simply to risky. EDIT: Also, please keep in mind that these laws went through Congress, the Supreme Court, and the president. Despite everybody saying that Bush is 'dumb' or 'incompetent' it's undeniable that chances are he's smarter than anybody here. Then there's Congress and the Supreme Court, composed of over 600 some members who all saw this law fit on basis of factual, proven, and valid evidence. There's almost no way it can be injust. Very, very slight chance, but judging from what I've seen...I'm going with the government.

Isn't that illegal? So you could get arrested for that? No. Look, the KKK has rallies and protests in the south still, and they are fully able to say whatever they damn please. As long as they aren't encouraging violence, it's legal. They are defenitely encouraging strife and pain and hatred, but that's totally legal. And I'm saying I would get banned, because I'm on a private forum (technically) that has it's own rules apart from society.

I found this bit interesting. I mean, let's say the hypothetical comes true and you're going to die with the only chance of life being a blood donation from a gay man. Could they somehow separate the 'gay' samples from the 'straight' samples (I know it sounds bad, but go with me here) and give the dying person a choice to take the 'gay' blood (and hence live) but be fully informed of the risked infection of HIV? Same procedure for needle users, etc, or is it too much red tape and paperwork? Something to think about. Too much red tape. There's a heavy risk that even if the patient is given the risk, they have the legal right to sue the hospital if they contract HIV/AIDS. You're probably right. I'm curious though (if anyone here knows the answer), do people sue if their kids get a genetic disease after being informed the risks/chances by the genetic counselors of a hospital? If not, Barihawk, do you think this would negate your point? I don't mind that there's limitation on who can donate on pragmatic grounds (and no, I don't think this is really a case of discrimination), I'm just wondering if we could impliment something that would give more people a chance at life while knowing the downsides of doing so, just like a genetic counselor gives prospective parents the downsides of having kids based on their family pedigrees, etc. I'm with Warrior, that we need a way..I'm pretty sure that the safest way today is to inform of the risks on paper, with eyewitnesses, make them sign to acknowledge the fact that they read the risks and accept them, then give them their option.

Blood type is confusing and transfusions...things can go wrong. HIV is as you said a higher risk in gay men. That, if we're assuming you're correct (which I am, despite no evidence. I'm assuming everything you say is true) then it's too high of a risk anyway. I believe that we should tell the person receiving the donation should be alerted to a gay possibility, and give them a choice. But I think it's better to die of some odd disease than from HIV. Always, always there are precautions to check blood for HIV/AIDS, but I'm guessing that maybe the doctors couldn't take the risk, I mean, after all HIV doesn't immediately react in the system. Maybe there's a form of bias in these decisions, but keep in mind that it was the FDA, and they're damn more educated than any of us poor blokes. And tryto, I believe you have provided all the evidence needed. The FDA is clearly correct in their choice; it's simply too damn risky to take in gay blood with those kind of numbers.

Or, you know, just a small group of crazy's. No need to stereotypically jump to all of religion :| . Yeah, dude, I find that offensive. Like, seriously. Cut me deep. Religion holds to a set of codes passed down for (what, 6000 years?), 2000 years, and 1500 years for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam respectively. (I don't know where buddhism and Hinduism started :| ) They are just holding to it. Incorrectly. Basing your stance attitude towards ALL religion just by this ONE group of insignificant haters is just as bigoted as meeting on poor African man then assuming all African's are poor and act just like him. #-o I smell hypocrisy. Islam, for example, isn't the ONLY religion that has religious text that people misinterpret or take the wrong way and end up doing bad things. The bible can be mis-read too. And calling all of us bigots for these lowlife bastard children is uneducated, mean, and downright...well, bigotry. :)

Why would you want to make fun of someone for being gay? Unless your a total douche bag with nothing better to do.. It's almost as bad as making fun out of people who are born blind, deaf e.t.c. People are born gay and I can't wait till science finally confirms this as stone fact. Also men are not the only gay people, there are women too or will you not make 'fun' of them for having sex with women? Double standards...? And why do gay people have to just take abuse from you and 'ignore' it, they have feeling too and constant verbal abuse can get people down and even drive them to commit suicide. Str0wez, I'm not even going to say anything, other than go check out the gay bashing thread. Warrior and I spent two days rocking each other with scientific evidence. The conclusion? Nothing. No evidence to back choice, no evidence to back being born that way. Go check it out for details :) At any rate, freedom actually has tangents to their streets. It's kind of like, a little avenue of freedom. Because freedoms are limited. You can't incite riots (which is why Martin Luther King was technically breaking the law...but dont get me wrong, I know he wasn't trying to.) or provoke actions, can't perform actions that might prevent or damage other peoples rights or physical beings...freedom is damn outright complicated. It's much more complex than 'I can do this because it's freedom of...' it's actually a huge series of tangents that might depend on just one word or one twitch. Maybe the right idea, but I don't think I could punch out an abortion protester (which...I wouldn't. I won't get into it, because frankly I'm tired and it's not the place) but par exampla: There's a number of picketing and lawful protests at soldiers' funerals. They carry signs bearing such slogans as 'God Hates Soldiers' and 'Thank God for Dead Soldiers' and 'God Hates Faqs' (One article here talks about it. It's just one example.) Most of these are miscellaneous reasons, ranging from America is being punished for accepting homosexuality, to an extreme form of anti-war propaganda. I think I have at least a good amount of public support when I say I'd like nothing more than to kick these people in the face. Chuck Norris style. But sadly, I can't, nor can I endorse people nor encourage people to do say. I can say that they're complete moronic [bleep]weeds (which, frankly, they are), but...freedom has it's limits. Now you have to ask though, is this a good thing? I mean, it's almost obvious that they deserve some form of punishment, but freedom allows them to do it. P.S. Str0wez you took what she (I'm going to take Kashi as a 'she' by their avatar.) wrote completely too literally, by the way. P.P.S. (EDIT) I agree there are resonable limits. A good one is that you do not have the right to sensless slander. You do have the right to senseless slander. I have every right to turn the racist cannon on and start blasting off some of the foulest and most racist things I can think of, and the police won't arrest me. (I will get banned though lol, but that's because tip.it is technically a private society so it can set it's own rules and 'rights'. I'm actually debating that now...about civil disobedience, but it's interesting. John Locke really did revolutionize American belief. Aristotle once quoted that 'Man is a social animal' ...I wonder if that means that we are inherently in need of some form of leadership and society?

Basically sums it up. Raven, thanks for the chat but I feel I'll just be going around in circles demonstrating old points. I'm not accepting "true origin" as a credible source (obvious reasons), especially considering it's concerning the whole 'gay gene' issue which I've already adressed. Not really interested in going around in circles. But as I said on the brain structures point, don't take my word for it. I'm more inclined to stop debating and research that and other specifics more to satisfy myself. I haven't seen anything credible that would indicate in any significant way that any of my sources are wrong about homosexuality not being a conscious choice. Alright, I'd agree with that. Thanks for the chat, too. It's quite rare to find somebody who will put together intelligent arguments beyond 'it just is' (which is an answer I've gotten.) At any rate, we really aren't doing anything more than circling, so yep. Let's leave this topic to the buzzards (...now that I think about it, I might be referring to other players as buzzards...but I actually mean just let it die.) So, have a good and fruitful life, hope we talk again...which we probably will. :)

It's closer, but there still wasn't SWAT team from what I guessed. But you got the 'Nam part right \ I don't really want to talk about this, anymore. Technically, nothing illegal occured so there really isn't any case. End argument?

Yeah...I'm at school now and I'm talking to a few of the hardcore Democrats. They all say that being gay is a born thing. :-k But none of them have evidence. On the other hand, I'm arguing with the scientists that say it's not genetic. Maybe the public is misinformed? :wall: It seriously wouldn't surprise me. As for your point 2), I know it's not a simple wakeup choice. But I don't think it's prebirth. There might be a change in brain function at one point, decided by an unknown factor of subconscious thought. Hell, there may even be volatile gene mutations as you live your daily life. But the root and the very core of our debate now is whether or not is a pre or postbirth that sexual prefernece is decided. True Origin has a few things about the origin of gayness. Sigmund Freud was an expert at psychoanalysis, and believed in a theory that he postulated about the unconscious mind that accounted for so much human behaviour. Here are a number of things about Sigmund Freud. He was also an atheist, but the point is, with his experiences with homosexuality he believed it was a post birth process (under influence of the parents.)

HAAAALO 3

Pfft. That's just asking for a punch to the face, because that's spitting in the faces of frankly (well, as of 1990...) 95% of the world. (Probably less today, but not too dramatically.) Bad things are published about God thousands of times over the good things. You never hear about people in Africa holding to their faith in order to get miraculous healing, people miraculously recovering from crippling fatal injuries, nor even the little stuff. I mean, but this stuff always gets through. Get this that these are the PEOPLE and their believes. I follow the church personally in this matter, but I'm fine with gays...for...the most part. I don't believe we should like, kill them. That's just wrong. The phrases used here are blasphemous and offensive to gays and all Christians. That's Nazism fundamentalist to push blame onto a minority, then kill them. Point is...that church needs to shut down and never run again, because they've tainted themselves with hate. P.S. I don't believe in belief pushing onto anybody except for agnostics. And I'm not saying shove it down their throat, I'm saying show them the light. Try, if you fail, ah well, if you succeed....hooooray?

Yes, but as that Moderator said...it's frankly not the best source of information. Besides, I live in Colorado, it's in a number of local newspapers. I'm just listing the things that they all agreed on. In my time (I sound old ) I've found that usually NEWSpapers close to the source and other written sources tend to be better than websites.

I agree with you that: Homosexual therapies have low success rate and failed attempts can be damaging. They are not worth the resources they output, and generally they are just bad for the gay or lesbian undergoing it. And for the chromosomes thing...I was about to go onto say that there's only 46 and we know what they all do...but we don't know what, like, Chromosome 23 does. All we know is that it causes Down Syndrome (or is it Hunters Disease?) or some form of genetic disease if there's something wrong with it. So I guess I forgot to take it out. :-k But the thing is, if it's not simply genetic as all my articles say, what specifically causes gayness? Is it a chemical imbalance, or change more or less, in the brain? Because genes outline our entire life when they are assembled. They assort our entire lives from what we like the taste of to whom we are likely to be friends with. Guess what I'm saying that if genes which do so much don't cause gayness, what does? (Prebirth, of course, seeing as we're questioning whether or not they're born with it.) I'm sorry, but this is actually just not true. The sex of the person we are attracted to is the question. There is actually a general body ratio that defines beautiful, whether you like it or not. (According to Week it's a 1:0.61 ratio, but I'm calling this from memory and it's a pretty old article) 'Beauty is in the eye of the beholder' is generally just untrue. Beauty and love are all based on fertility. Nature has...pretty much built us that way over time. We look at a person, calculate how fertile they are by their looks, and then go in for the kill. Frankly it works both ways. Which is an argument for gays...I've heard scientists say (no evidence) that being gay is a change in this region of the brain, that simply shifts attention from females to males. But I don't know. And I'm sorry if I'm not putting together any evidence with this post; I got up at four in the morning 'cause I couldn't sleep so I went online. :XD: Man I'm weird.

You can get suspended for things you did out of school easily. For example, if there were...compromisingly sexual pictures of a girl at a high school taken by a guy at the same high school, both of them can be suspended even though they were both at a party, over the weekend in another friggin' city. The arm of the school system stretches very far...It has a lot of power. Besides, underage drinking is illegal anyway.

Ugh this arguing is getting annoying. Don't we have lives? Stop arguing with each other. The point is, this particular Baptist church is being completely biased, racist, and otherwise...prejudiced. And blasphemous, to be honest. (We in the church believe that we cannot decide what God likes and does not like. He loves all creation, and if we change that idea then we are creating a false God.) The point is, this post is for flaming a really crappy group of adolescent churchgoers who have serious problems with gays \ I mean, I just think they shouldn't get married...but this is just bad.

Stop downloading pr0n? That was my brother's suggestion when I started to get popups. Lol... Seriously? Try AVG. Theyre good at catching Trojans and viruses, even their free version. Maybe a trojan is in your computer, taking down your firewalls..

Guys I got the full story, and I'm now leaning towards a, 'drop it and leave it alone' kind of things. Apparantly, it was his father that refused paramedic treatment, though they did get a look at the boy. The father was a Vietnam medic, and was treating his boy just fine. However, the paramedics went to social services and reported a 'seriously potentially threatening' head injury. The POLICE, not the SWAT, got a search warrant and went to the house immediately. They did NOT manhandle any of the members of the family, and they took the boy away to hospital and did not allow his father in (This is the worst part, in my opinion.) He was released shortly after with the instructions to keep under cold pressure and apply Aspirin when...needed. At any rate, similiar story, only a little less extreme but a little more...weird. The father was a Vietnam Army Medic, so he was clearly trained...so it was an unncessary procedure. However, the Police did have a search warrant so it was legal. No rights were needed to be read, since there wasn't arresting involved. All in all, I say a good day. You can choose to believe or not to believe this story, but that's the buzz around my school, my parents, and a few local newspapers I found. O:) Good luck all. Edit: Pffft. Forgot an 'n't' at the end of Was before Arrest.