Dheginsea

First off gotta give props to not trolling for making this thread :thumbsup: anyways..... Abortion is morally wrong. Plain and simple, no. George Bush and Tony Blair ought to be trialled for war crimes. I'm a bit iffy on this one, while I would be okay with the being tried I'm no strongly advocating it. Meat eating ought to be banned. No, we're OMNIVORES not herbivores. Anonymity on the internet should cease to exist. Also a no, anonymity should still exist. However people also need to be educated on the dangers on online interactions with people. Animal testing should be banned. This is also iffy for me, so here's what I'll say: yes it should be banned all most animals but not all ,i.e rats, mice, guinea pigs Not all people should have the same rights. Now that depends on what you're asking. If you mean people segregated racial or other such stupid things no. But if you mean criminally insane people and others of the like should be given different rights then yes. Killing in self defense is still manslaughter. Would depend on the situation, but in almost all cases no. Assisted suicide shouldn't be discouraged. It should be carefully discussed but discouraged, no. Not saving someone's life should be a criminal offense. That would also depend on the situation, if its you couldn't stop a guy jumping off a bridge then no. But if it's like the time when that homeless man (Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax) in NY stopped a mugging of an old lady was stabbed and lay dying i think for about 1 hour on the sidewalk and people walked by with no second thought, then yes all those people should be tried with some criminal offense. Healthcare should be charged based on lifestyles No, as that would be discrimination. The use of torture can be justified. It would only be justified in the: nuke is about to go off in 10mins in NY and the only way to find it is using torture then yes, it would be justified.

Ya in my opinion its definetly torture.

i stubbed my toe yesterday, must be a sign.

For me it also boils down to freedom. But i think the difference between me and you is how far that freedom goes.

Ah, alright I think I understand what you mean now. I don't see any reason our current system should be altered. The only scenario to come up since the Constitution was ratified that I view as seriously constitutionally questionable was the concept of judicial review. On second thought, maybe I don't understand what you're saying. Could you give an example? I just don't see why the Constitution should be altered due to the internet, computers, phones, cell phones, e-mail, cars, radio, nukes, machine guns, planes, helicopters, movies, tv, video games, space flight, DNA, High-speed rail, etc. Our system of government has worked fairly well for two hundred-some odd years and has proven flexible enough to change with the times while remaining rigid enough to not be exposed to the prevailing political wind at any given time. The only modern issue I'd like to see added via an amendment would be a Balanced Budget Amendment. Ya, I think you understand what i was trying to say, but I want to talk about something I found recently. This statistic is taken from My link "A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides" so in those shootings every time a gun was used correctly (self defense) it was used incorrectly 22 times (11 if you do not count suicides). Now here's my questions, do the needs of the many outweigh the few? If those guns weren't there 1 person would have either defended themselves using other means or the crime against them would have continued. However if the weren't there then the 22 (11 if you don't count suicides) of those criminal assaults, or homicides, or unintentional shootings, or suicides may not have occurred. So, do the needs of the many outweigh the few?

Hey sorry I haven't responded to your post yet I'm taking a small break from the internet though I'm pretty sure I'll answer your post tomorrow as that is when my break will end.

Well to start with, they were incredibly well-read people. They had studied ancient civilizations and took the good aspects while fixing the bad. They were well-versed in Bacon, Hobbes, Newton, Locke, and many other political thinkers. They also had the benefit of seeing first-hand a tyrannical government and then a overly decentralized government (under the Articles of Confederation) and were able to incorporate aspects accordingly. None of those things you listed pertain to governmental systems. They pertain to governmental policy. If we were to rewrite the constitution now do you think we'd include clauses like "The rights of the citizens to keep and own televisions shall not be infringed."? The Constitution is not like the USC, it outlines the boundaries of the federal government, specifies what it can and cannot do. It's a document of mainly negative liberties, whereas the USC is mainly positive liberties and pertains to the things you mentioned. Edit: And no, I don't think the USC is always right, and that it applies to all situations. What i meant was that with all of these changes shouldn't the system of government be altered, and that one type of government should not work for all scenarios (sorry if i was a little vague the list seemed to make more sense to me).

ya that's true but i prefer religious debates as they are more fun :mrgreen:

Okay it's late i don't really have much time right now, so ill start with this point. Your basically saying that the people who wrote the constitution could create a government that would work successfully in any age? Why would they be so smart, and we so dumb we can't figure out what kind of system we need in this day in age? How could they have factored in: The internet, ,computers, phones, cell phones, e-mail, cars, radio, nukes, machine guns, planes, helicopters, movies, tv, video games, space flight, DNA, High-speed rail, etc.

Grats to king duffy :thumbsup:

I myself am an atheist although this hasn't given me a whole lot of trouble. A few of my religious friends will make jokes about it now and again but i try to keep my views private in public unless specifically asked. Luckily nothing extreme has really happened to me, sometimes people snicker when they here this but besides that nothing. Although once on the runescape forums me and some other former clan members of a certain clan (that is now dead) were posting on the clans forum with the clans leader, eventually we began to talk about religion. I remember that the conversation ended with my former clan leader saying that when i die and cry in front of Jesus on my way to hell, He'll be walking by laughing as he goes on up to heaven... Anyway being atheist doesn't really affect me to much but i definitely would not be able to run as president as one.

To the best of my knowledge, FDR never promised that WWII wouldn't happen if certain pieces of legislation were passed (*cough* stay under 8% unemployment from the stimulus bill *cough* *cough*), or broke numerous campaign promises or outright lied to the American people (We're going to close gitmo, get out of Iraq and end the war in Afghanistan), or be outright hypocritical ("we inherited Bush's debt and record deficit!" while proceeding to double the national debt, and increase the debt by more than Bush's first 3 years in this year's month of February). It's even funnier, now that I'm watching the news, that most of the information that led to Osama's death came from CIA interrogation techniques that Obama rallied against in his campaign. But you know, whatever. Next round on me for nabbing him! I feel like you enjoy Fox news. Obama's not perfect, but name me one president that has been. Washington? Slavery was legal then. And as I recall Washington was somewhat kind to his slaves. You're just proving our points. So because slavery was legal than you think its justified? If murder was legal would you say it was justified? Also even if your nice to your slaves they still have to work for you, and they couldn't just walk off and sleep in a nice field in the afternoon if they wanted to, they had no rights. No matter how you spin it slavery then and now was a bad thing. Also there were abolitionists back then, if he was a "perfect" president he would have not owned slaves and been a strong advocate against it.

No, they were discussing a heretic belief that was springing up among other things. The books in the New Testament, as I said, were put together pretty much 200 years before it. There was no evidence that this was discussed at Nicaea then, and even less evidence that Constantine had anything to do with the bible (other than commission 50 copies of it). The list of books, while widely accepted, was never really "ratified" until the Council of Trent, in 1546. Not true the unaccepted books were considered heresy even back then. Also here is a little other fun fact (that I am not sure if I mentioned originally) NONE of the gospels were written by the apostles they were all written a generation later by their followers. I feel like though I'm not positive that one of those gospels may have been written/partially written by an apostle but I'm not sure about it. Also there are a total of 56 other gospels that we know exist/have existed. Not all are preserved and some we only know through references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

i think the irony is lost to the vast majority of these tip it forumers I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that there is a peaceful solution for absolutely every human conflict? Make no mistake; I wish there was. But there isn't. Of course, the mind-set of 6 billion+ people cannot be changed overnight. Humanity may not be mature enough to resolve all problems peacefully at this time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards it. But if we resolve our problems peacefully, how will we control the population? Well that sounded awfully controrversial, although if you're serious; populations can be controlled through proper education and social values. Could you define peacefully? Would you count police arresting protesters as peaceful? if you did then i would say it would be possible but hard to do. If not then i think controlling a people without any form of force would be a complete brainwash of all people entering/living in the nation, and this would just be a unreachable dream at best. Personally I don't agree with any form of violent coercion, that includes policing. You don't need to brainwash people for them to behave sensibly nor do you have to point a gun at their head, humanity is capable of fair social interaction without intervention. Although I agree that it would be near impossible to adopt such a system at present, society isn't ready for it. Wounds have to be recovered before progress can be made; too bad most wounds seem to be becoming worse. Here's the problem there always have been, are, and will be people who disagree with you. Also there will always be people who want to stand out and need attention, some of those people might comite criminal acts or other violent acts. The fact is there will always be some dissagrement, some fight, some action that a person will do that requires some force and words could not be used. Once you realize that you can work to making a world that needs the least of that as possible.

Gonna run through each question using 1,2,3 etc. 1: So you are saying that you really couldn't care less about the constitution but you will use it to defend your rights because it can be useful 2: Owning a gun would not always be a wise choice, depending on where you live and who you live with. 3: Tell me when would a civilian need a ak47? 4: Armor piercing rounds could easily smash through a car, thus this makes assassination of any person much easier. 5: Again i ask when would a civilian need a ak47? 6: Again when would you need a ak47? Your version of common sense is very different from mine, my common sense would be no guns for no civilian while it seems that you are saying guns for us all (excluding the people that you said shouldn't have guns of course, also sorry if that seems a little broad) 7: What do you mean a criminal wouldn't buy a gun legally because you can track it? Many criminals are stupid and i guarentee that there is at least one criminal that has bought a legal gun and then used it in a crime. 8: gotta agree with you, this really is common sense. Though will i think you disregard the constitution to much treating it as some always right law seems to be wrong to me. 9: Again what about the stupid criminals? would their victims just be unlucky that a stupid guy killed them when we thought that they wouldn't and we decided not to prevent against it. 10: So when you have the gun your making yourself to be the judge the jury and the executioner. Do you always trust yourself with that position? what about their motives? they might have been pressed into this situation to lets say... protect their families. 11: I don't own one either and i wouldn't support getting one. 12: Targets i do find completely understandable, though i myself have no desire to shoot targets all day. 13: exactly how i would feel if i owned a gun 14: Again when you shoot the person your making yourself to be the judge, the jury, and the executioner. Also if you do take pleasure in harming another human being would you consider yourself a sadist (non-sexual of course). 15: I'm in the middle of piece of paper and lets worship the constitution its all knowing.

sorry misread your statement disregard what i said if you saw it

Yes, i understand that the courts say that the second amendment is an individual right, but those questions I was asking weren't about what the courts say but what you personally think. Also how far does that individual right to bear arms go? Free speech is an individual right but its not unlimited, for example you can't burn crosses or shout fire in a crowded theater. Anyway my questions still stand.

Source: Dan Brown, fiction writer. The development/formation of which books were in and out of the Bible didn't take place at the council of Nicaea, it was a much more early and gradual process. While there was debate on which books should be in the New Testament, this happened about 200 years before Constantine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muratorian_fragment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea Wasn't the council of Nicaea more of a ratification process for the books in the new testament? Whad'ya mean teach the children that capitalists are thieving bastards? We are thieving bastards :-P: In my opinion the best government would be a cross between capitalism and socialism. Free market with some regulations is good and all, but we also need some of the social safety nets that a socialistic government would provide.

Well the guy is probably going to become a hero, so I imagine it would feel pretty damn good ...and a target for every revenge-seeking extremist. Which is why I can see their name not being released for a very, very long time (if at all). Probably something similar to Deep Throat. I would first off guess that the person couldn't say who he is until the mission details were partially/completely declassified (assuming they are) and he would probably wait at least a a few years before identifying himself, or he might wait til he deathbed like Deep Throat. I don't understand what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that there is a peaceful solution for absolutely every human conflict? Make no mistake; I wish there was. But there isn't. Of course, the mind-set of 6 billion+ people cannot be changed overnight. Humanity may not be mature enough to resolve all problems peacefully at this time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work towards it. But if we resolve our problems peacefully, how will we control the population? Well that sounded awfully controrversial, although if you're serious; populations can be controlled through proper education and social values. Could you define peacefully? Would you count police arresting protesters as peaceful? if you did then i would say it would be possible but hard to do. If not then i think controlling a people without any form of force would be a complete brainwash of all people entering/living in the nation, and this would just be a unreachable dream at best.

No. The main argument is its a violation of our 2nd Amendment rights as Americans. Its written in the Constitution of the United States. A follow up argument to back up the second amendment rights is to be able to protect self and property. The 2nd Amendment says (punctuation might differ from other copies): A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Note: these question are for anyone to answer they arn't just directed at Kriegsmier Now please list to me all the reasons why the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. And here are some other questions i have, Do you think the constitution is always right, and that it applies to all situations even though the world we live in today is a world the writers of the constitution could never have imagined? Do you think it is necessary for a civilian to own a gun? Do you think it's necessary for a civilian to own a ak47 or other automatic/semi-automatic guns? Do you think its necessary for a civilian to have armor piercing rounds? Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian reasonable? Would you consider a law outright prohibiting the buying or selling of armor piercing rounds or automatic/semi-automatic guns to a civilian unconstitutional? Are there situations that should prevent a person from purchasing a gun? If the right to bear arms is so needed and protected that all people should be able to have guns, do insane people also have that right or should it be denied? Should a felon be able to purchase a gun and if so would you consider a law preventing one from doing so unconstitutional? If other means of self-defense (i.e tasers) can be used as well as guns in a self-defense situation would you support heightening gun control laws in order to promote greater use of such measures? These are some other questions on a more personal note. Do you own a gun? (if not don't bother with the rest of these questions) Do you shoot targets with that gun? Do you shoot live targets with that gun? (nonhuman of course) If you do shoot live targets do you take pleasure in it? If you take pleasure in it then you are saying that you enjoy hurting/killing weaker things, true or false? And if you do take please in hurting/killing weaker things is that something the constitution should protect?

Guys just wondered about this, how would you feel if you were the guy who ended up shooting Osama?

I was reading the times article on this and it said his dad had over 50 kids :shock:. And that he was kinda the son of a slave... Guy had an interesting past. Anyway, I thinks its a good thing that he is finally dead, though killing anybody for any reason isn't really something I would completely approve of (please don't go into the selfdefence killings etc on this statement guys). i laughed when i saw that

:shock: the ubercape, can't wait for it to come out :smile:

makeover mage exactly, you can't assume a girl is a girl just because of their avatar.

This might be a bit late but, Aasiwat good luck with whatever you do :thumbsup: