user1991

Its often best to ignore such people. My Girlfriend has decided she doesn't want kids, which is fine with me. I think there are to many people just having kids when they are not in a good position too. A rich woman has a child, it doesn't matter if she doesn't have maternity leave because she is still rich. A poor woman has a child, it does matter because if she doesn't have the maternity leave she loses her job/loses all her income/probably can't afford to live/child gets born into a poor family/very hard to get a decent education when you have to work to make sure your family survive/end up getting into drug dealing/goes to prison/goes away for 10 years/comes out and now its virtually impossible to get a decent job especially with the lack of education etc.

Seriously, if you really think that, then there is nothing I can say to you. You're a moron and you deserve absolutely NOTHING that you get. **** you and **** everything that you stand for. The same goes for you. And who still says "commy".. what is this like the 1940s?

Seriously, if you really think that, then there is nothing I can say to you. You're a moron and you deserve absolutely NOTHING that you get. **** you and **** everything that you stand for.

Why shouldn't women get maternity leave? Why should I pay for an employee who is giving me no work? Oh right, yeh, cause women who become pregnant should obviously have to go through the hassle of finding a new job whilst preparing to give birth + not earn any money for a large amount of time. That's totally reasonable to expect them to just somehow get money from nowhere whilst not being able to work. And yeh, if they can't get the money, then I guess the child will just have to be born into poverty, or as soon as the child is born the mother will just have to work overtime, missing out on her child's life. But at least we don't have to spend! Pull emselves up by their boostraps I say! Profit IS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING.

What the [bleep] does that have to do with anything?

Fine, have fun up on your moral high horse. The practical bastards don't mind being on the ground. Capitalism isn't practical either. It creates a [cabbage]load of problems that people in the future will have to deal with. Capitalism has helped with technological advances, but we are past the stage where we need capitalism to give us those. .(and we didn't NEED them in the first place.) We would have probably advanced at the same level without such a "free market" but what I'm saying is that you could look at it that way and you wouldn't be totally wrong. It's just a change in the zeitgeist. Personally, I just bring it up whenever I can, try to give as much to charity as I possibly can without me having to live on the streets (and even that you could possibly be considerred selfish). It's not that I'm on a "moral high horse".. It's just that these problems have a relatively easy solution and it annoys me when people say stuff like "how do we change the way we have been taught to live" - well ffs it's only a CHOICE. If you're conscious of it it isn't hard at all.

Venomai is right. We can say the same for any other subject that there has been a general opinion change over. It starts out as a minority, and over the generations more people agree with it and eventually it is the majority and then we start to see real change. In my opinion, weed will at least be decriminalized in the next 30-40 years, at the most. People in the Netherlands are so lucky their government isn't a bunch of propaganda fiends..

I'm not doing your homework for you kid 1. I'm not a "kid". 2. I don't have homework. Capitalism is unjustifiable. Socialism has flaws yes, but it is better than what we have now. If we have to slowly and slowly go through consecutive systems which are even just a little bit better than the last one until we get to a decent system, that is much better than declaring "oh, well, it's like this now, therefore it can never change", and sticking with the most stupid system of all time. You want another idea? Microcredit. It isn't perfect but it's better than this steaming pile of [cabbage] we have now.

What system would this be? Give me one reason why we couldn't produce as much food with socialism. [And just for the record, I'm not even a socialist really. I'm far more left than that, but we can't get there overnight. We have to be pragmatic about the situation we are in. So whilst I disagree with the concept of government, I still vote because the only way to make it better is from the inside - out.]

Yet you ignore that the only reason why the world produces as much food as it does is because of capitalism. There is nothing to suggest that as much or even more food could not be produced under a different system.

So what? We turn over, go to sleep, eat more food than we need, throw mountains of the stuff away each and every year and not care about how thousands in the third world will die every month because they're not being basic security. Is that your attitude on domestic policies? Oh look at that corruption in the government. Well, we could fight it, but it's always gonna be there so why honestly bother? If supermarkets stopped selling deliberately at a loss to get more people through their stores, if we paid farmers in the third world a fair amount for their produce, I'm not saying it would completely solve the problem, but it would help. Like or not, roll your eyes, whatever. The only food crisis here is due to capitalism. I agree with you 100%. People here act like capitalism is the only way of going about things and "oh, well it's like this now, and you honestly expect US to change? These people born into poverty, forced to work into poverty with absolutely no chance of escaping it except some sort of miracle are OBVIOUSLY not trying hard enough. When there's a will there's a way. Pull 'emselves up by their boostraps!" I know it's rare for the right (well, what I consider right wing, the actual spectrum has been distorted) to be accused of being naive, but really it's true. Naive and selfish. PS. Who are you voting for in 2010?

What? There is more than enough food for everyone to have a decent amount. Sure, we're not talking huge feasts and banquets in palaces and chateaus, but that's the price we have to pay if we want a more equal society. "The world does produce enough to feed everyone. But the food is often in the wrong place, or unaffordable, or can't be stored long enough. So making sure everyone has enough to eat is more about politics than science." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4038205.stm You're trying to ridicule my argument with this "fairy land" when you know full well that without this system in which the profits of corporate agribusiness are deemed to be more important than the lives of foreign people who are not lucky enough to have been born in "developed" (certainly not ideologically) countries it is entirely possible for us to at least put a huge dent in the problem that is world hunger. My solution? We slowly get rid of capitalism. Just admit it, you put your "right to excess" before the lives of people born into countries where the only way they can even attempt to survive is to partake in this system.

No, it's the fact that you're blaming capitalism for the food crisis. Yes, capitalism means the richer countries will have food. But it doesn't cause the food crisis. Capitalism is at the core of every single one of the direct reasons for the global food crisis. The entire reason that food is produced/exchanged in this way is because capitalist systems demand this through their very nature.

Christ, if there was one post that really deserve the rolling eyes smiley, it's this one. Why exactly? If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least say WHY. You can't get by in a debate just by *rolling your eyes*. No, no, I'm pretty sure rolling one's eyes would suffice as a response to your post. It's all good when you have the consensus, isn't it?

Agreed What do you think the cause of this is though? What puts people in that situation?

Christ, if there was one post that really deserve the rolling eyes smiley, it's this one. Why exactly? If you're going to say I'm wrong, at least say WHY. You can't get by in a debate just by *rolling your eyes*.

Please explain so this doesn't seem so disgusting. Are you joking? It's an effective way of keeping the population in check. Without AIDS, population would boom. Can you imagine more people in this planet with the food crisis we're already having? The cause of that is capitalism not over population. Seriously, if we're at the point where we don't want millions of lives to be saved because we might actually have to stop consuming so many resources, you know we've gone too far.

I've heard that as well. It was on NASA's site, I believe. I believe they said that they were able to pretty much tell what shape the universe was (spherical) and they found this out by calculating the average amount of atoms that occupy a unit of space. They said space wasn't a perfect vacuum. Anyway, the shape of the universe that they have come to the conclusion with supposedly means that the universe will expand forever (whether than expand to a certain point and collapse in on itself due to gravity from all of the galaxies). Is this anything similar to what you have seen in an article somewhere? I read somewhere, I think it was on either ESA or NASA that some physicists had found out, by measuring distance between galaxies or something that the expansion of the Universe was speeding up.. and that eventually everything will be so far apart it will be as if there is NOTHING.

Haven't they proven now that the expansion of the universe is speeding up and looks like it will continue to do so forever? OT I know but I'm just making sure I'm not misinformed.

It's got the full compliment of chromosomes and will grow into a human unless it is killed. A sperm alone won't become a human and only has a half set of chromosomes. Where is the line drawn? If you stop a rape that technically means you're stopping the potential life of a child. Potential doesn't mean anything. Until it IS, it isn't. "Killing" an embryo isn't "killing" because there is NOTHING there. It isn't conscious. It isn't a person. It doesn't have a soul. And this thread isn't on abortion.

Except for the fact that you specifically stated that Christianity was THE cause of anti-miscegenation laws, and then have proceeded to backtrack when called on it, instead choosing to invoke the "That's not really what I was saying!" line. No, I didn't. Can you please copy and paste that? I've just looked back and I actually said "the Church(which I was technically wrong about)/Christians of that time were FOR (implying they justified) those laws. Blame the person who brought the topic up, then. And, no, it wasn't me. Because one is a violation of the Constitution and the other one isn't. *points to Baker v. Nelson* What's the difference between barring people on the same gender to marry and barring two people from marrying based on consanguinity? Nothing, they should both be allowed. And if you're referring to where I said "it IS causation", the causation I was referring to was "The Bible as justification CAUSES Christians to be FOR those laws" NOT "Christianity caused the laws".

...Except for when you said Christianity was the cause. Or do I need to copy and paste for you? Oh, but no. You'll just say that's not what you really meant, instead meaning to say "justification", right? It's funny how you mention semantics, when you try to change the meaning of your words after the fact. Christianity was ONE of the causes. All you do is pick apart certain phrases/words that people use when you know that it isn't the argument they're actually using. You claimed post hoc ergo propter hoc because you were saying that I said that "Being Christian" was the cause of anti-miscegenation laws. This isn't what I said. I actually said that most of the Christians at this time were for those laws BECAUSE of their Christianity and used the Bible as justification (and the Bible also "caused" them to believe such things). It isn't post hoc ergo propter hoc if IT IS THE GODDAMN REASON THEY BELIEVE IT. And if you want to talk fallacies, how about we go back a page and see where you tried to get me with guilt by association? What's actually funny about this is that it turns out that I wasn't even talking about Zeitgeist the conspiracy movie but the German word "zeitgeist", that you fail to know the meaning of. And this thread is on homosexuality. Here is a question for you, to get back on topic (and no I'm not changing the subject we can continue this if you like). What is the difference between not letting black people marry and not letting gay people marry?

Except Christianity (which at the time accepted the ideology used as justification for slavery etc) WAS used as justification. Christianity "caused" slavery in the same way that "racism" caused slavery. They were both important in the reasoning for the justification. You're arguing definitions of words here, and you're not tackling what I'm actually saying. You see my argument and you see a couple words with ambiguous definitions and then declare post hoc ergo propter hoc when you're completely aware that I'm not employing said fallacy. Quit trying to blind people with semantics, and look at what I'm saying, in fact, I'll clarify so you can't misconstrue. "Christianity played a part in slavery (not what I initially mentioned but I'm including it anyway because it did) and therefore anti-miscegenation laws." (And don't say that it didn't, because even if it wasn't officially "on the books" you're aware that religious reasoning was one of the main reasons why people were for those laws.) People being "Christian" supporting certain things does not necessarily mean that "Christianity" is the cause (which is what you're trying to imply that I'm saying) BUT IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT when included in that label "Christianity" is certain consensus ideology or in this case, CLEARLY passages of the Bible that were used as justification.

I'm going to help you out here, because you're a bit confused on a couple of things. 1.) Because a group is something, doesn't mean they engage in actions because they are that something. Let me demonstrate this otherwise faulty reasoning with the following statement: "Being white was the cause of the African slave trade, as most slave traders were white." Does that make any sense to you? It shouldn't. Henceforth the reason why your above statement is equally as idiotic. It's predicated upon a false assumption. WHAT THE [bleep]?!?! You're usually a pompous d-bag, but never this much. "Being white was the cause of the African slave trade, as most slave traders were white." "Religious ideology was used to justify slavery + anti-miscegenation." ARE NOT THE SAME TYPE OF ARGUMENT. The majority of the Christians at the time were FOR these things BECAUSE of the Bible. Claiming therefore that these laws were entirely/almost entirely steeped in religious values is NOT implying false cause and effect. "Being white" and "being Christian" are totally different because "being Christian" (in those times anyway) meant that you would accept certain ideologies. "Being Christian" (in those times) almost always meant "Being FOR slavery/anti-miscegenation BECAUSE of the fact that they were Christian and accepted certain ideas". This is totally different to the "Being white" argument because included in "Christian" IS certain ideology. What I'm saying basically equates to "Being racist was one of the causes of slavery" - which is a completely valid statement. Admit you're wrong this time don't just disappear.

Except I don't. But whatever makes you sleep at night (: I'd say the same, but then I remember that you're anti-equality so yeh.. no thanks.