Discussions on sensitive and sometimes controversial subjects. PLAY NICE!!!!!
You do not have enough Respect Points to post in this topic.
[ron h] Friday, August 21, 2009 9:50:11 PM
Well Strat, neither the Spaghetti Monster nor the Giant Chicken has a history as a supreme being or a book to help support their existance in history...call the Bible or Koran or whatever books fairy tales if you'd like, but there's at least documented facts in those books as well...no insult taken as you stated nothing I would find insulting...You should always beware of ppl who insist anything upon you!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Friday, August 21, 2009 7:27:00 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, proving that he doesnt exist is, imo... Pointless. Religion comes forward with the claim that there is a god - religion has to prove that there is. So long as it doesnt, we can consider god as non-existent. If we are going to play the "prove that isnt so game", then we can all think of tons of outrageous stuff that cant be proven, but cant even be properly disproven. I think that it was Dawkins who came up with the idea of the "flying spaghetti monster". Lets say that I claim that god is a flying spaghetti monster - prove that he isnt. I can claim that a giant chicken laid an egg, and that became the Earth. Prove that isnt so. If I really believe it, you wont be able to convince me that it isnt so, neither will I be ever capable of proving that it is so.
So, "prove that isnt so" logic clearly wont get us anywhere. Sorry, didnt mean to insult anyones religious feelings, the giant chicken and the spaghetti monster are there just to sort of illustrate the point.
And, so long as there are people who are not content with just being religious, but insist that we should all share their religious values, and want to make those same values into laws and constitutions, then I think that we really should know wheter they are right or wrong in their faith.
ron h wrote:
Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
I.M.P. wrote:
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM
[spapad] Friday, August 21, 2009 7:41:30 PM
When you think that big. The mean weight of our milky way wouldn't even make a grain of sand on a beach if one was to use that analogy to show the emmenseness of the universe. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Craig Wagenhoffer from Friday, August 21, 2009 3:34:25 PM)
Craig Wagenhoffer wrote:
I can agree with you, Strat.
A philosopher once said that "the only thing we know is that we know nothing". That's the only thing we can really take for granted. It sounds silly, but I agree with this. I think of it everytime I watch one of those space documentaries on NGC.
Religious people have a hard time to accept this. They prefer to live in a world that's black and white. I can understand that, it's very tempting to believe in such a world, because it's easy. I wish everything was black and white. It would make things a lot easier. But I know it doesn't work that way. We live in a grey world, with only a little a bit of black and white. So I'm not saying that there is no higher order, I'm saying that I don't know.
Just check out this picture. It's scary, mind-blowing and exciting at the same time. It makes you realize how little we know:
It's so vast. What's out there? Nobody knows. It makes you realize that everything is possible.
Yeah thats some pretty heavy shit there Craig. But very interesting.... thats a cool post.
Hey,maybe in a parallel universe..."Metallica" never "sold out" or Cliff Burton never died!! lol!
But seriously....that is a very interesting subject and it is "scary" as you said...but mind blowing.... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Craig Wagenhoffer from Friday, August 21, 2009 4:41:58 PM)
Craig Wagenhoffer wrote:
Yeah, I've heard about dark matter. It's crazy, but it makes sense.
Have you ever heard of parallel universes? Don't ask me to explain what it's all about, because it's too bizarre.
Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
I.M.P. wrote:
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM
[Craig Wagenhoffer] Friday, August 21, 2009 4:41:58 PM
Yeah, I've heard about dark matter. It's crazy, but it makes sense.
Have you ever heard of parallel universes? Don't ask me to explain what it's all about, because it's too bizarre.
Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
I.M.P. wrote:
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM
[Craig Wagenhoffer] Friday, August 21, 2009 4:28:36 PM
Yeah, it's really cool. It's called "The ultra deep field", but I'm sure you already know this. These pictures were taken by the Hubble telescope. Hubble is getting old and will stop functioning in 2013. By that time it's successor, the James Webb space telescope, will already be operating. The James Webb telescope will be much stronger than the Hubble. Very exciting to say the least. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Friday, August 21, 2009 3:44:53 PM)
guidogodoy wrote:
Oh, those pix are way cool!
Craig Wagenhoffer wrote:
I can agree with you, Strat.
A philosopher once said that "the only thing we know is that we know nothing". That's the only thing we can really take for granted. It sounds silly, but I agree with this. I think of it everytime I watch one of those space documentaries on NGC.
Religious people have a hard time to accept this. They prefer to live in a world that's black and white. I can understand that, it's very tempting to believe in such a world, because it's easy. I wish everything was black and white. It would make things a lot easier. But I know it doesn't work that way. We live in a grey world, with only a little a bit of black and white. So I'm not saying that there is no higher order, I'm saying that I don't know.
Just check out this picture. It's scary, mind-blowing and exciting at the same time. It makes you realize how little we know:
It's so vast. What's out there? Nobody knows. It makes you realize that everything is possible.
Oh, those pix are way cool! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Craig Wagenhoffer from Friday, August 21, 2009 3:34:25 PM)
Craig Wagenhoffer wrote:
I can agree with you, Strat.
A philosopher once said that "the only thing we know is that we know nothing". That's the only thing we can really take for granted. It sounds silly, but I agree with this. I think of it everytime I watch one of those space documentaries on NGC.
Religious people have a hard time to accept this. They prefer to live in a world that's black and white. I can understand that, it's very tempting to believe in such a world, because it's easy. I wish everything was black and white. It would make things a lot easier. But I know it doesn't work that way. We live in a grey world, with only a little a bit of black and white. So I'm not saying that there is no higher order, I'm saying that I don't know.
Just check out this picture. It's scary, mind-blowing and exciting at the same time. It makes you realize how little we know:
It's so vast. What's out there? Nobody knows. It makes you realize that everything is possible.
[Craig Wagenhoffer] Friday, August 21, 2009 3:34:25 PM
I can agree with you, Strat.
A philosopher once said that "the only thing we know is that we know nothing". That's the only thing we can really take for granted. It sounds silly, but I agree with this. I think of it everytime I watch one of those space documentaries on NGC.
Religious people have a hard time to accept this. They prefer to live in a world that's black and white. I can understand that, it's very tempting to believe in such a world, because it's easy. I wish everything was black and white. It would make things a lot easier. But I know it doesn't work that way. We live in a grey world, with only a little a bit of black and white. So I'm not saying that there is no higher order, I'm saying that I don't know.
Just check out this picture. It's scary, mind-blowing and exciting at the same time. It makes you realize how little we know:
It's so vast. What's out there? Nobody knows. It makes you realize that everything is possible.
[Craig Wagenhoffer] Friday, August 21, 2009 3:02:09 PM
Every major religion represents God as something perfect. But how can God be perfect if his very own creation, humankind, is the embodiment of the word "imperfect"? Just think about it. Most religions don't make sense.
[Head banger] Friday, August 21, 2009 7:43:53 AM
The main goal of science is to establish fact. but the main goal of scientists is not always the same. they are human, have their own biases and beliefs, and will aproach things from different points of view. some are trying to prove themselfs right, others want to use their "facts" to affect social change, some do it for money, some want to be famous. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
I.M.P. wrote:
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
[_strat_] Friday, August 21, 2009 7:27:00 AM
Well, proving that he doesnt exist is, imo... Pointless. Religion comes forward with the claim that there is a god - religion has to prove that there is. So long as it doesnt, we can consider god as non-existent. If we are going to play the "prove that isnt so game", then we can all think of tons of outrageous stuff that cant be proven, but cant even be properly disproven. I think that it was Dawkins who came up with the idea of the "flying spaghetti monster". Lets say that I claim that god is a flying spaghetti monster - prove that he isnt. I can claim that a giant chicken laid an egg, and that became the Earth. Prove that isnt so. If I really believe it, you wont be able to convince me that it isnt so, neither will I be ever capable of proving that it is so.
So, "prove that isnt so" logic clearly wont get us anywhere. Sorry, didnt mean to insult anyones religious feelings, the giant chicken and the spaghetti monster are there just to sort of illustrate the point.
And, so long as there are people who are not content with just being religious, but insist that we should all share their religious values, and want to make those same values into laws and constitutions, then I think that we really should know wheter they are right or wrong in their faith.
Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
(Quoting Message by I.M.P. from Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM)
I.M.P. wrote:
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM
[ron h] Friday, August 21, 2009 6:12:47 AM
Hello I.M.P., I don't believe we've met, though I do enjoy reading your posts!!
HB, very interesting question!!
I think a lot along the same lines I.M.P. does, however if God exists, that doesn't neccesarily mean science could prove his existence. There are many many other physical things out there that science is aware of and still can't explain...google dark matter!!!
And even though science can't prove he exists, can they prove he doesn't?? NO!! Granted, religion is based on blind faith and not fact...but do we really have to have all the answers?? I don't want to know half the stuff I already do know lol
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact.
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
Edited at: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:15:09 AM
[I.M.P.] Friday, August 21, 2009 1:53:57 AM
In the quest for knowledge and fact, toes are bound to be stepped on. Especially the toes of those who hold onto beliefs not based in fact...
Science and religion are in conflict so long as religion stands in the way of science. The fact that there are religious scientists points to the fact that they are not necessarily in conflict.
If there were a scientific way to prove God existed, I'm sure scientists would discover it, publish the findings for all to see, and celebrate. The main goal in science is to establish fact. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:15:34 AM)
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
[_strat_] Thursday, August 20, 2009 4:42:02 PM
Depends on the religion, I guess. Or, how much are the believers prepared to trust science. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:15:34 AM)
Head banger wrote:
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
[Head banger] Thursday, August 20, 2009 8:15:34 AM
are religion and science nesesarily in conflict?
[_strat_] Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:59:31 PM
Personaly, I think that whoever built that accelerator is ultimately looking for a life...
Anyway, like I said, I dont think that the big bang theory claims that something came out of nothing. Now, I dont know what exactly it says, but if youre willing to study that Wikipedia article... Well, that is, if you have at least five years to spend, because it is all very complicated.
And yes, that is true, religion sort of began in the absense of science, but that doesnt make it true. And even if it did, which religion is the right one? There are hundreds of religions in the world.
And thats another thing that is wrong in all those "scientific" proofs of god. If those people in Switzerland really find the god particle, will that mean that they have proven that there is a god? In that case, which god? Jahwe, Allah, the Christian God? Maybe the gods of ancient Greeks, Romans or Slavs? Maybe a form of god/s not imagined or worshipped anywhere in the world? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:15:24 PM)
ron h wrote:
And I guess that's always been my question...something never comes from nothing, and the BBT is what most science hangs it's collective hat on...but it's a contradiction. Back in the day when religion began, there was no science as we know it today, so civilization had to make sense of the unknown the best way it could. Even in today's science...you look at the new accelerator they've built there in Europe, what are they ultimately looking for?? The God Particle!!!
(Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:57:30 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Oh, and it might be worth mentioning, that all this is not always against religious teachings. The story that you were told is actualy the official view of the Catholic church towards evolution, and the Big Bang theory is, according to them, the physical appearance of Creation.
Thats the Catholics, anyway. Orthodox Christians and Protestants are more fundamentalistic in this.
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
HALFORD CREATED THE LUMP! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[ron h] Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:15:24 PM
And I guess that's always been my question...something never comes from nothing, and the BBT is what most science hangs it's collective hat on...but it's a contradiction. Back in the day when religion began, there was no science as we know it today, so civilization had to make sense of the unknown the best way it could. Even in today's science...you look at the new accelerator they've built there in Europe, what are they ultimately looking for?? The God Particle!!!
Oh, and it might be worth mentioning, that all this is not always against religious teachings. The story that you were told is actualy the official view of the Catholic church towards evolution, and the Big Bang theory is, according to them, the physical appearance of Creation.
Thats the Catholics, anyway. Orthodox Christians and Protestants are more fundamentalistic in this.
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:16:29 PM
[Head banger] Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:03:36 PM
thats roughly the way this debate went. everyone has their own perceptions. somethings can be proven, some cant. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:59:25 PM)
spapad wrote:
When I was a little girl I asked my mother about creation vs. evolution (a difficult child) Her answer was suprisingly interesting.
She said evolution did take place. God made the ancient creatures and when they were not what he wanted he phased them out etc.
Her ultimate answer was no one knows just how long a day is to God; could be millions of earth years, and still only took him six days.
Simple answer for a child's simple mind, back in the sixties, would have been a pretty progressive thought, especially in the bible belt. I'm not very religious to this day, but I appriciate her trying to blend the values with the science.
As for debate, you know I suck at that stuff, I'll leave it to you gentlemen. Just a passing on a memory I had.(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:53:33 PM)
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:07:08 PM
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:39:12 PM
That's it! Im staying out of here as I'm am just too silly to do serious. LOL
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:17:37 PM
I was refering to the fact you said the god made a Lump! LOL Wish I had a good Bevis and Butthead moment here!
[guidogodoy] Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:12:15 PM
Kosher? I am not Jewish. Wouldn't know. HAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:09:39 PM)
spapad wrote:
And what what a fine lump it was! Wether it be with black or white matting! Long may he riegn!
Hummm, something doesn't sound quite Kosher about that! LOL
guidogodoy wrote:
HALFORD CREATED THE LUMP! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:09:39 PM
And what what a fine lump it was! Wether it be with black or white matting! Long may he riegn!
Hummm, something doesn't sound quite Kosher about that! LOL [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:06:30 PM)
guidogodoy wrote:
HALFORD CREATED THE LUMP! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[guidogodoy] Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:06:30 PM
HALFORD CREATED THE LUMP! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:48:12 PM)
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Would that be the short, illustrated version, or the real thing?
spapad wrote:
Oh, my family was Southern Baptist growing up, that is why I said it seemed like a very progressive view when my mother told me that tale. Most Baptists would hit you with a Bilble for that view! LOL
_strat_ wrote:
Oh, and it might be worth mentioning, that all this is not always against religious teachings. The story that you were told is actualy the official view of the Catholic church towards evolution, and the Big Bang theory is, according to them, the physical appearance of Creation.
Thats the Catholics, anyway. Orthodox Christians and Protestants are more fundamentalistic in this.
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[_strat_] Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:02:14 PM
Would that be the short, illustrated version, or the real thing? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:01:02 PM)
spapad wrote:
Oh, my family was Southern Baptist growing up, that is why I said it seemed like a very progressive view when my mother told me that tale. Most Baptists would hit you with a Bilble for that view! LOL
_strat_ wrote:
Oh, and it might be worth mentioning, that all this is not always against religious teachings. The story that you were told is actualy the official view of the Catholic church towards evolution, and the Big Bang theory is, according to them, the physical appearance of Creation.
Thats the Catholics, anyway. Orthodox Christians and Protestants are more fundamentalistic in this.
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 8:01:02 PM
Oh, my family was Southern Baptist growing up, that is why I said it seemed like a very progressive view when my mother told me that tale. Most Baptists would hit you with a Bilble for that view! LOL
Oh, and it might be worth mentioning, that all this is not always against religious teachings. The story that you were told is actualy the official view of the Catholic church towards evolution, and the Big Bang theory is, according to them, the physical appearance of Creation.
Thats the Catholics, anyway. Orthodox Christians and Protestants are more fundamentalistic in this.
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Honestly, I just read the synopsis in the first paragraph... If you want to go into details, I suggest getting a few college degrees, and a Stephen Hawking wheelchair.
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[_strat_] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:57:30 PM
Oh, and it might be worth mentioning, that all this is not always against religious teachings. The story that you were told is actualy the official view of the Catholic church towards evolution, and the Big Bang theory is, according to them, the physical appearance of Creation.
Thats the Catholics, anyway. Orthodox Christians and Protestants are more fundamentalistic in this. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:48:12 PM)
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:53:07 PM
I'm not that smart, and would prefer to stay ambulatory for as long as possible in my lifetime! LOL [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:51:09 PM)
Honestly, I just read the synopsis in the first paragraph... If you want to go into details, I suggest getting a few college degrees, and a Stephen Hawking wheelchair.
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Honestly, I just read the synopsis in the first paragraph... If you want to go into details, I suggest getting a few college degrees, and a Stephen Hawking wheelchair. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:48:12 PM)
spapad wrote:
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:48:12 PM
Oh crap, gonna open my mouth again! What created the lump that exploded Strat? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:41:41 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess.
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[_strat_] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:41:41 PM
Well, I dont know that much about that theory, but from what I know, it doesnt say that it started from nothing. It says that the universe expanded from a sort of a primordial... "lump". Or something like that. Basicly, that it is all a procces of continous expanding that still goes on. If I got it right, anyway.
But, if we turn to religion... There is always the question of where did god come from?
And I think that wheter or not a certain theory is true or not is not that important, what I think matters most is the approach. The scientific theories are imo serious attempts to explain something. They give us something to build on, they can be adapted or changed to suit new evidence and new facts that come along, or transformed completely, if the facts speak completely against them. Whereas religion only says what happened, and no debate. The bible just says that god created the havens and the earth, period. God created this, did that, said that. Why? Well, thats the big question, I guess. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:30:39 PM)
ron h wrote:
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from??
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[ron h] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:30:39 PM
I understand that the concept of blind faith is a tough pill to swallow...more so in this day and age. My issue has always been the Big Bang Theory...if there was nothing...where did the B A N G come from?? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:16:04 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me.
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:22:58 PM
I used to go to church all the time when I was a child but then I got sick. So sick I could not go to school nor church, and I really just never liked going back to church after that. I'm an agnostic. I only question the belief in the Bible/afterlife. I would love to believe there is some power in the universe that forms all into existance. I just think the Bible is a great novel, but not reality. There is much history in it that can be proven, but no one can prove the existance of a diety from that book. I have read the Bible, most of it. The old testament shows an angry and vengefull God only Abraham seems to be able to reason around to humanity. The early God is almost savage! Strange how things progressed but did not at the same time. God offered "his only son" for sacrifice for the good of mankind, and that was always planned to happen wether or not Jesus had grown to love his fellow mankind. But, I guess Had Jesus not found us worthy, living amoungt us, he would have died, and the world would have ended. If you follow the logic of the Bible.
My last post on this matter. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:09:31 PM)
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[_strat_] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:16:04 PM
Lol... We used to have a lot of that here. If I remember right, we even had a thread dedicated to religion, that got sacked because we were to out of hand...
Anyway, Im an atheist, as are both my parents... Ive had a secular upringing, no sunday schools, I wasnt even baptised... And I guess it stuck with me, although I think religion is interesting, thats why Ive read the bible, even tho I never attended a service in my life.
As for Creationism vs. Evolution, I buy into evolution, pretty much just because it makes sense to me. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:09:31 PM)
ron h wrote:
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[ron h] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:09:31 PM
There is a group out there of Scientists who feel as you've mentioned that there's room for both...God and Science. I thought that was odd in that science is based in fact where the other...
I have an Athiest friend who I've had many discussions with about this very topic, as I was raised in a family that went to Church every Sunday...he would get so frustrated because even though I could never prove God existed, he couldn't prove he didn't...and that even though he doesn't believe God exists, I made him face the realization that even Athiests benefit by humanities belief in a 'Supreme Being' in their everyday lives regardless of what he believes lol but he insisted I believe his side and I never would lol to this day he utters obscenities when the subject is broached [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:53:33 PM)
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[Becks] Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:05:11 PM
I like that idea your mother passed on to you, Spa.
Me, I keep my views to myself mostly, I do have a certain degree of spirituality in my life, but I also have a science degree LOL! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:59:25 PM)
spapad wrote:
When I was a little girl I asked my mother about creation vs. evolution (a difficult child) Her answer was suprisingly interesting.
She said evolution did take place. God made the ancient creatures and when they were not what he wanted he phased them out etc.
Her ultimate answer was no one knows just how long a day is to God; could be millions of earth years, and still only took him six days.
Simple answer for a child's simple mind, back in the sixties, would have been a pretty progressive thought, especially in the bible belt. I'm not very religious to this day, but I appriciate her trying to blend the values with the science.
As for debate, you know I suck at that stuff, I'll leave it to your gentlemen. Just a passing on a memory I had.
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[spapad] Sunday, August 16, 2009 6:59:25 PM
When I was a little girl I asked my mother about creation vs. evolution (a difficult child) Her answer was suprisingly interesting.
She said evolution did take place. God made the ancient creatures and when they were not what he wanted he phased them out etc.
Her ultimate answer was no one knows just how long a day is to God; could be millions of earth years, and still only took him six days.
Simple answer for a child's simple mind, back in the sixties, would have been a pretty progressive thought, especially in the bible belt. I'm not very religious to this day, but I appriciate her trying to blend the values with the science.
As for debate, you know I suck at that stuff, I'll leave it to you gentlemen. Just a passing on a memory I had.[Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:53:33 PM)
Head banger wrote:
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
ron h wrote:
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 7:07:08 PM
[Head banger] Sunday, August 16, 2009 5:53:33 PM
yeah, because I said so, thats a great argument. so is everyone knows its so. first off, iv everyone did, there would be no argument. second everyone could be wrong. hundreds of years ago everyone thoght the earth was flat. turns out they might have been wrong. the popular belief is not always right.
I read an interesting debate on creationism vs evolution a while back. must see if I can find it. people get so absolutly certain of one idea or another, they cant even conceive of a way that both ideas could be right.
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
(Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[ron h] Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:19:10 PM
That's pretty much my point, HB. If a person is going to give an opinion and debate it, they also have a responsibility to substantiate it...not necessarily to prove themselves right or superior or what ever...but to give me that information so that I may logically respond to it...and likewise. Too often an opinion ends with "well, that's how I feel", "so", "I don't care", "what do you know?", "because I said so"...and the like. Where's the give and take?
As far as theory vs. fact...Evoloution vs. Creationism...Big Bang vs. God...These are great example of that...ppl have died because of their views on this...how can either be proven??
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
Edited at: Sunday, August 16, 2009 3:20:27 PM
[Head banger] Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:31:38 PM
damn double posts. sigh. its not important enough to see twice. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM)
Head banger wrote:
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
[Head banger] Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
[Head banger] Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:30:51 PM
the thing that made me think of that post first was seeing the debate on healthcare from the states. its funny, you see both sides calling the other hitler...
here, lately we mostly do have civilized discussions, it wasnt always that way, but it is now. It is hard to understand where others are coming from, but without knowing that how can anything they say mean anything?
BTW, the seek first to understand then to be understood comes from steven covey, think its part of the 7 habits.
[I.M.P.] Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:33:27 PM
That is a good point ron h. Goes well with that quote HB used, "Seek to understand, and then to be understood." [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:44:24 PM)
ron h wrote:
I will add that it's sometimes hard to understand anothers' opinion when I can't understand how they came to it. A lot of times ppl express an opinion that has no foundation or basis of fact, or even an experience with which to compare it to. Let's say I don't agree with Strat on Western global policy, how am I to understand (or respect) his point of view if I've never had to walk in his shoes? So, he would need to explain to me how he came to that point of view, what facts support or relate to me something he went through himself. It happens way too often that opinions are given when the one who gives it can't substantiate it...if they even know what they're talking about. That above all else really gets to me and I admit...get's extremely frustrating...especially if I can substantiate mine. That was just example Strat, nothing more!!
_strat_ wrote:
Good to see you back.
Well, Id say that its because we all have our opinions that we value a lot... And especialy in this thread those opinions touch things like patriotism, religion, ethnic backgrounds etc. Which are usualy very personal, and its easy to get into a situation where someones opinion insults someone else.
I dont know... I usualy try not to be insulting, especialy towards regular members, although I guess I have slipped from time to time. Anyway, if I have an opinion on something I will say it, and I have been attacked for it before. Anthing from my critic of religion, opposing ethnic and national pride, opposing the Western global policy... And I guess some of my responses could be considered attacks as well. IDK. I think that above all we should keep in mind that just because someone says something we dont like, its not because that person wants to attack us or hurt us, but because that person really does think that way.
Head banger wrote:
Time for a rant.
Why can’t people in today environment have a civilized discussion?Not just on the boards here, but in general.So many things we discuss these days create anger and harsh words.What does that accomplish?Any issue that has any importance soon results in people calling names, yelling, and not understanding.Try discussing abortion, global warming, taxes, health care, global trade, evolution, etc.People have a hard and fast opinion and they stick to it.They seek to convince the other side that they are wrong.Do they get anywhere?Hell no.The motto “Seek first to understand then to be understood” seems lost these days.Never let facts get in the way of what you know.
While I am ranting, when did people start confusing a scientific theory with fact?A fact is something that is proven, with no doubt.A theory may be widely accepted, debated or whatever, but it’s not a fact.Global warming, evolution, relativity are all theory’s that will most likely never be proven.Then you here people using computer models or forecasts to prove something.A computer model is a forecast.It is only proof that someone can write a program.The other day the weather forecast before I left for work was 0%, yet on the way to work it was raining.Think about it, that’s a 2 hour time gap, and the forecast was wrong.That forecast uses computer models, forecasters with years of experience, yet is wrong.No model or forecast is proof of anything.
Ok, rant over.Be respectful, not close-minded, remember the difference between fact and theory, and for Pete's sake a forecast is not proof.Now…Everyone go back to arguing or sleeping, whichever.
[I.M.P.] Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:30:16 PM
You know, after reading that post in Blah you put up a few days ago, I was thinking it'd have been a good candidate for the Social Issues thread-and here you are, hehe.
And hey, HB, don't we have civilized discussions in here? LOL. I know what you mean though man. It's a weird world. I think partially it's the times we live, and the technology we have. This is a stressed world we live in, and sticking to an opinion is sometimes a "crutch" if you will. My opinion on that, lol. Obama said it was guns and religion, well... Anyway, I notice the ones that are doing the least bickering and yapping are the ones doing the DOING that needs done. Just my experience there with the world.
Yeah, technology has a way of making things fast, easy, and convenient, and sometimes extremely accurate, however, it is only as good as we make it and use it. Technology still requires the human brain to function. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:44:09 AM)
Head banger wrote:
Time for a rant.
Why can’t people in today environment have a civilized discussion?Not just on the boards here, but in general.So many things we discuss these days create anger and harsh words.What does that accomplish?Any issue that has any importance soon results in people calling names, yelling, and not understanding.Try discussing abortion, global warming, taxes, health care, global trade, evolution, etc.People have a hard and fast opinion and they stick to it.They seek to convince the other side that they are wrong.Do they get anywhere?Hell no.The motto “Seek first to understand then to be understood” seems lost these days.Never let facts get in the way of what you know.
While I am ranting, when did people start confusing a scientific theory with fact?A fact is something that is proven, with no doubt.A theory may be widely accepted, debated or whatever, but it’s not a fact.Global warming, evolution, relativity are all theory’s that will most likely never be proven.Then you here people using computer models or forecasts to prove something.A computer model is a forecast.It is only proof that someone can write a program.The other day the weather forecast before I left for work was 0%, yet on the way to work it was raining.Think about it, that’s a 2 hour time gap, and the forecast was wrong.That forecast uses computer models, forecasters with years of experience, yet is wrong.No model or forecast is proof of anything.
Ok, rant over.Be respectful, not close-minded, remember the difference between fact and theory, and for Pete's sake a forecast is not proof.Now…Everyone go back to arguing or sleeping, whichever.
[_strat_] Sunday, August 16, 2009 1:21:08 PM
Well, I agree with that. Theres another thing here, when we take into consideration that we are from different parts of the world. We all have stereotypes. In my country, or I think even in Europe in general, the prevailing stereotype about Americans is that you are all just fat, dumb, TV addicts. Or, we know better, but thats the sort of an image that most of us will get when thinking about America. And Im sure that you have plenty of stereotypes about us. We all know that the stereotype isnt true, but its still there somewhere, and its sometimes hard to ignore it.
That, and since you mention the Western global policy (which is a good example, since it always generates the most heated debates), I guess I would have to take into consideration that most of the people here are Americans. From a country which is a major player (probably the biggest) in these policies, and I come from a country that has only recently joined up, and even that on a very small scale. Since American foreign policy is very much tied to patriotism towards America, I guess that I have to take into consideration that Im talking to people that are biased, whereas I dont feel any loyalty to the US (being that Im not American), and never have to answer for my countries actions in the global field. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ron h from Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:44:24 PM)
ron h wrote:
I will add that it's sometimes hard to understand anothers' opinion when I can't understand how they came to it. A lot of times ppl express an opinion that has no foundation or basis of fact, or even an experience with which to compare it to. Let's say I don't agree with Strat on Western global policy, how am I to understand (or respect) his point of view if I've never had to walk in his shoes? So, he would need to explain to me how he came to that point of view, what facts support or relate to me something he went through himself. It happens way too often that opinions are given when the one who gives it can't substantiate it...if they even know what they're talking about. That above all else really gets to me and I admit...get's extremely frustrating...especially if I can substantiate mine. That was just example Strat, nothing more!!
_strat_ wrote:
Good to see you back.
Well, Id say that its because we all have our opinions that we value a lot... And especialy in this thread those opinions touch things like patriotism, religion, ethnic backgrounds etc. Which are usualy very personal, and its easy to get into a situation where someones opinion insults someone else.
I dont know... I usualy try not to be insulting, especialy towards regular members, although I guess I have slipped from time to time. Anyway, if I have an opinion on something I will say it, and I have been attacked for it before. Anthing from my critic of religion, opposing ethnic and national pride, opposing the Western global policy... And I guess some of my responses could be considered attacks as well. IDK. I think that above all we should keep in mind that just because someone says something we dont like, its not because that person wants to attack us or hurt us, but because that person really does think that way.
Head banger wrote:
Time for a rant.
Why can’t people in today environment have a civilized discussion?Not just on the boards here, but in general.So many things we discuss these days create anger and harsh words.What does that accomplish?Any issue that has any importance soon results in people calling names, yelling, and not understanding.Try discussing abortion, global warming, taxes, health care, global trade, evolution, etc.People have a hard and fast opinion and they stick to it.They seek to convince the other side that they are wrong.Do they get anywhere?Hell no.The motto “Seek first to understand then to be understood” seems lost these days.Never let facts get in the way of what you know.
While I am ranting, when did people start confusing a scientific theory with fact?A fact is something that is proven, with no doubt.A theory may be widely accepted, debated or whatever, but it’s not a fact.Global warming, evolution, relativity are all theory’s that will most likely never be proven.Then you here people using computer models or forecasts to prove something.A computer model is a forecast.It is only proof that someone can write a program.The other day the weather forecast before I left for work was 0%, yet on the way to work it was raining.Think about it, that’s a 2 hour time gap, and the forecast was wrong.That forecast uses computer models, forecasters with years of experience, yet is wrong.No model or forecast is proof of anything.
Ok, rant over.Be respectful, not close-minded, remember the difference between fact and theory, and for Pete's sake a forecast is not proof.Now…Everyone go back to arguing or sleeping, whichever.
[ron h] Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:44:24 PM
I will add that it's sometimes hard to understand anothers' opinion when I can't understand how they came to it. A lot of times ppl express an opinion that has no foundation or basis of fact, or even an experience with which to compare it to. Let's say I don't agree with Strat on Western global policy, how am I to understand (or respect) his point of view if I've never had to walk in his shoes? So, he would need to explain to me how he came to that point of view, what facts support or relate to me something he went through himself. It happens way too often that opinions are given when the one who gives it can't substantiate it...if they even know what they're talking about. That above all else really gets to me and I admit...get's extremely frustrating...especially if I can substantiate mine. That was just example Strat, nothing more!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:28:01 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Good to see you back.
Well, Id say that its because we all have our opinions that we value a lot... And especialy in this thread those opinions touch things like patriotism, religion, ethnic backgrounds etc. Which are usualy very personal, and its easy to get into a situation where someones opinion insults someone else.
I dont know... I usualy try not to be insulting, especialy towards regular members, although I guess I have slipped from time to time. Anyway, if I have an opinion on something I will say it, and I have been attacked for it before. Anthing from my critic of religion, opposing ethnic and national pride, opposing the Western global policy... And I guess some of my responses could be considered attacks as well. IDK. I think that above all we should keep in mind that just because someone says something we dont like, its not because that person wants to attack us or hurt us, but because that person really does think that way.
Head banger wrote:
Time for a rant.
Why can’t people in today environment have a civilized discussion?Not just on the boards here, but in general.So many things we discuss these days create anger and harsh words.What does that accomplish?Any issue that has any importance soon results in people calling names, yelling, and not understanding.Try discussing abortion, global warming, taxes, health care, global trade, evolution, etc.People have a hard and fast opinion and they stick to it.They seek to convince the other side that they are wrong.Do they get anywhere?Hell no.The motto “Seek first to understand then to be understood” seems lost these days.Never let facts get in the way of what you know.
While I am ranting, when did people start confusing a scientific theory with fact?A fact is something that is proven, with no doubt.A theory may be widely accepted, debated or whatever, but it’s not a fact.Global warming, evolution, relativity are all theory’s that will most likely never be proven.Then you here people using computer models or forecasts to prove something.A computer model is a forecast.It is only proof that someone can write a program.The other day the weather forecast before I left for work was 0%, yet on the way to work it was raining.Think about it, that’s a 2 hour time gap, and the forecast was wrong.That forecast uses computer models, forecasters with years of experience, yet is wrong.No model or forecast is proof of anything.
Ok, rant over.Be respectful, not close-minded, remember the difference between fact and theory, and for Pete's sake a forecast is not proof.Now…Everyone go back to arguing or sleeping, whichever.
[_strat_] Sunday, August 16, 2009 10:28:01 AM
Good to see you back.
Well, Id say that its because we all have our opinions that we value a lot... And especialy in this thread those opinions touch things like patriotism, religion, ethnic backgrounds etc. Which are usualy very personal, and its easy to get into a situation where someones opinion insults someone else.
I dont know... I usualy try not to be insulting, especialy towards regular members, although I guess I have slipped from time to time. Anyway, if I have an opinion on something I will say it, and I have been attacked for it before. Anthing from my critic of religion, opposing ethnic and national pride, opposing the Western global policy... And I guess some of my responses could be considered attacks as well. IDK. I think that above all we should keep in mind that just because someone says something we dont like, its not because that person wants to attack us or hurt us, but because that person really does think that way. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:44:09 AM)
Head banger wrote:
Time for a rant.
Why can’t people in today environment have a civilized discussion?Not just on the boards here, but in general.So many things we discuss these days create anger and harsh words.What does that accomplish?Any issue that has any importance soon results in people calling names, yelling, and not understanding.Try discussing abortion, global warming, taxes, health care, global trade, evolution, etc.People have a hard and fast opinion and they stick to it.They seek to convince the other side that they are wrong.Do they get anywhere?Hell no.The motto “Seek first to understand then to be understood” seems lost these days.Never let facts get in the way of what you know.
While I am ranting, when did people start confusing a scientific theory with fact?A fact is something that is proven, with no doubt.A theory may be widely accepted, debated or whatever, but it’s not a fact.Global warming, evolution, relativity are all theory’s that will most likely never be proven.Then you here people using computer models or forecasts to prove something.A computer model is a forecast.It is only proof that someone can write a program.The other day the weather forecast before I left for work was 0%, yet on the way to work it was raining.Think about it, that’s a 2 hour time gap, and the forecast was wrong.That forecast uses computer models, forecasters with years of experience, yet is wrong.No model or forecast is proof of anything.
Ok, rant over.Be respectful, not close-minded, remember the difference between fact and theory, and for Pete's sake a forecast is not proof.Now…Everyone go back to arguing or sleeping, whichever.
[Head banger] Sunday, August 16, 2009 9:44:09 AM
Time for a rant.
Why can’t people in today environment have a civilized discussion?Not just on the boards here, but in general.So many things we discuss these days create anger and harsh words.What does that accomplish?Any issue that has any importance soon results in people calling names, yelling, and not understanding.Try discussing abortion, global warming, taxes, health care, global trade, evolution, etc.People have a hard and fast opinion and they stick to it.They seek to convince the other side that they are wrong.Do they get anywhere?Hell no.The motto “Seek first to understand then to be understood” seems lost these days.Never let facts get in the way of what you know.
While I am ranting, when did people start confusing a scientific theory with fact?A fact is something that is proven, with no doubt.A theory may be widely accepted, debated or whatever, but it’s not a fact.Global warming, evolution, relativity are all theory’s that will most likely never be proven.Then you here people using computer models or forecasts to prove something.A computer model is a forecast.It is only proof that someone can write a program.The other day the weather forecast before I left for work was 0%, yet on the way to work it was raining.Think about it, that’s a 2 hour time gap, and the forecast was wrong.That forecast uses computer models, forecasters with years of experience, yet is wrong.No model or forecast is proof of anything.
Ok, rant over.Be respectful, not close-minded, remember the difference between fact and theory, and for Pete's sake a forecast is not proof.Now…Everyone go back to arguing or sleeping, whichever.
[BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Monday, July 27, 2009 2:06:26 AM
Does anyone here think that the moon-landing was staged? Seems that the era that we lived in back then did not have the technical capabilities of putting a man on the moon. We're barely capable of cleaning up our present dilemnas with air travel. So to think that Nassau launched all these Apollo missions and sent 3 or 4 crews to carry out their moon walks and such is becoming more fraudulant as the years pass. I do believe in the space shuttle and space station projects. However, 7-10 day missions with limited technological savvy in 1969-1972? And here we are 40 years later, and have yet to go back? The question is, were we really there in the first place? And when is this planned mission to Mars? Rather puzzling with the 'so-called' evidence in one hand, and the conspiracy theory in the other! Thank you. (a. Hammerstein)
[Palmer Griffiths] Sunday, July 26, 2009 1:45:18 PM
I don't know if I'm going a little off topic here but as I've gotten older I've gotten a little more cynical. I don't really believe alot of what the media feeds us or what Politicians tell us. I think George Carlin was right when he said we have the illusion that we have freedom of choice.The only freedom of choice we're limited to is Glazed or Jelly donuts,Smoking or non Smoking.I think politicians are there as smoke screens and window dressing and big business is calling the shots. A select few are the ones that are making the major decisions ex: the big corporations and the lobbyists who influence policies that are made.Anyhow that's just my opinon. Check this out
I hear ya Strat!! These are complex days and there are no easy answers. I just try to hang on to what I've got and do the best for me and my family just like anybody else no matter where you live. I wonder what the world would be like if there were no politicos? no government? no kings or queens or emirs...just simple life with simple folk making their way...
Sorry you just got up as it's now time for bed here...good chatting with you!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:16:01 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, I wouldnt know much about her political career, save from the presidential campaign...
Now, IDK, I guess generaly speaking, nobody likes politicians that dont do anything much... Then again, from what Ive seen up until now, I kinda prefer those that just cash their paychecks and dont do anything... Its the surest way that they wont screw anything up. Which is what most do, when they try to actualy do something.
ronhartsell wrote:
I can't say I've been following her travels as I have enough to deal with in my own backyard. I will say this, she's a ball of fire and shows no ill effects of her loss. That woman has been non-stop on the go pretty much from the time she accepted her position...I'll give her that much. Whether any of it makes a difference...I don't know, but she's not sitting back cashing her paycheck like a lot of other politicans.
_strat_ wrote:
Lol. I think Ive seen that one before, but its still funny.
IDK, tho... Personaly, even tho it all came out funny and allright, it still has an edge to it... Ive been to those warzones myself (after the war, of course), and I know a couple of people that fled from the war and now live here... Looking at it that way, a bithc on the other end of the world, trying to make herself a hero on that account isnt all that funny anymore.
ronhartsell wrote:
_strat_ wrote:
Lol. I wont argue with that.
IDK, back when your presidential campaign started, I really thought that she might do ok... But as it went, Im really glad for you people that you didnt elect her. That Bosnian sniper dogding thing was a laugh tho.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hilary is much more of a man than Bill will ever be!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Hillary better watch out then.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
That dog at the end rocks too.
ronhartsell wrote:
[_strat_] Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:16:01 PM
Well, I wouldnt know much about her political career, save from the presidential campaign...
Now, IDK, I guess generaly speaking, nobody likes politicians that dont do anything much... Then again, from what Ive seen up until now, I kinda prefer those that just cash their paychecks and dont do anything... Its the surest way that they wont screw anything up. Which is what most do, when they try to actualy do something. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:10:59 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
I can't say I've been following her travels as I have enough to deal with in my own backyard. I will say this, she's a ball of fire and shows no ill effects of her loss. That woman has been non-stop on the go pretty much from the time she accepted her position...I'll give her that much. Whether any of it makes a difference...I don't know, but she's not sitting back cashing her paycheck like a lot of other politicans.
_strat_ wrote:
Lol. I think Ive seen that one before, but its still funny.
IDK, tho... Personaly, even tho it all came out funny and allright, it still has an edge to it... Ive been to those warzones myself (after the war, of course), and I know a couple of people that fled from the war and now live here... Looking at it that way, a bithc on the other end of the world, trying to make herself a hero on that account isnt all that funny anymore.
ronhartsell wrote:
_strat_ wrote:
Lol. I wont argue with that.
IDK, back when your presidential campaign started, I really thought that she might do ok... But as it went, Im really glad for you people that you didnt elect her. That Bosnian sniper dogding thing was a laugh tho.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hilary is much more of a man than Bill will ever be!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Hillary better watch out then.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
That dog at the end rocks too.
ronhartsell wrote:
[ron h] Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:10:59 PM
I can't say I've been following her travels as I have enough to deal with in my own backyard. I will say this, she's a ball of fire and shows no ill effects of her loss. That woman has been non-stop on the go pretty much from the time she accepted her position...I'll give her that much. Whether any of it makes a difference...I don't know, but she's not sitting back cashing her paycheck like a lot of other politicans. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:05:14 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Lol. I think Ive seen that one before, but its still funny.
IDK, tho... Personaly, even tho it all came out funny and allright, it still has an edge to it... Ive been to those warzones myself (after the war, of course), and I know a couple of people that fled from the war and now live here... Looking at it that way, a bithc on the other end of the world, trying to make herself a hero on that account isnt all that funny anymore.
ronhartsell wrote:
_strat_ wrote:
Lol. I wont argue with that.
IDK, back when your presidential campaign started, I really thought that she might do ok... But as it went, Im really glad for you people that you didnt elect her. That Bosnian sniper dogding thing was a laugh tho.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hilary is much more of a man than Bill will ever be!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Hillary better watch out then.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
That dog at the end rocks too.
ronhartsell wrote:
[_strat_] Wednesday, July 22, 2009 9:05:14 PM
Lol. I think Ive seen that one before, but its still funny.
IDK, tho... Personaly, even tho it all came out funny and allright, it still has an edge to it... Ive been to those warzones myself (after the war, of course), and I know a couple of people that fled from the war and now live here... Looking at it that way, a bithc on the other end of the world, trying to make herself a hero on that account isnt all that funny anymore. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:59:38 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
_strat_ wrote:
Lol. I wont argue with that.
IDK, back when your presidential campaign started, I really thought that she might do ok... But as it went, Im really glad for you people that you didnt elect her. That Bosnian sniper dogding thing was a laugh tho.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hilary is much more of a man than Bill will ever be!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Hillary better watch out then.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
IDK, back when your presidential campaign started, I really thought that she might do ok... But as it went, Im really glad for you people that you didnt elect her. That Bosnian sniper dogding thing was a laugh tho.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hilary is much more of a man than Bill will ever be!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Hillary better watch out then.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
That dog at the end rocks too.
ronhartsell wrote:
[_strat_] Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:56:07 PM
Lol. I wont argue with that.
IDK, back when your presidential campaign started, I really thought that she might do ok... But as it went, Im really glad for you people that you didnt elect her. That Bosnian sniper dogding thing was a laugh tho. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:11:38 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
Hilary is much more of a man than Bill will ever be!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Hillary better watch out then.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
That dog at the end rocks too.
ronhartsell wrote:
[ron h] Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:11:38 PM
Hilary is much more of a man than Bill will ever be!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:18:49 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
I see... Hillary better watch out then.
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
That dog at the end rocks too.
ronhartsell wrote:
[_strat_] Wednesday, July 22, 2009 6:18:49 PM
I see... Hillary better watch out then. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:31:12 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
And YES...the puppy ROCKS!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Lol!!! Seriously now, would you want to hug Bush? I know I wouldnt.
That dog at the end rocks too.
ronhartsell wrote:
[ron h] Wednesday, July 22, 2009 5:31:12 PM
Hey Strat!! No I would NOT!!! I was a Republican through the Reagan Era and the first Bush, but that was it!! I actually voted for Ross Perot in '92 and then crossed fully to the dark side in '96, the 2ND term of the Clinton Era and have never crossed back!!!
Do ANY of you out there really believe in or trust this new prez?
This CLOWN in 6 months has already done this for OUR future:
-EVERY working taxpayer now has an extra $6-7000 to pay back tot the gov't as part of the stimulus scam
-GM had their main CEO FIRED by the gov't and "the ONE" (which is unconstitutional)
-GM went bankrupt and was BOUGHT then scolded and shamed by the UAW and our Gov't (unconstitutional)
-Hate Crimes bills are being rushed thru as we speak (pass thru the House, the Senate votes on it next) which WILL void ALL 1st Amend Rights (Freedom of Speech) if it passes!
-Socialized Gov't ran health care is in the works (which means we have to pay for more SCUM who don't pay for their own problems)
I could go on for a MONTH! This new Snake Oil Salesman in Obama really is turning this nation upside down. Meanwhile, you and I as hard working taxpayers are getting bent over and screwed royally! Are you proud of this???
[ron h] Tuesday, June 30, 2009 2:56:39 PM
Walk away...without trust, there's nothing. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by BLOOD SUCKER Esquire from Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:12:37 PM)
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote:
Here is a question that I would like to pose to all of you. You catch your partner cheating. It may be at a romantic dinner, a picture film, or another setting. A close friend of confidant informs you of this situation, or perhaps, you catch them in the act yourself. Whom do you take out your anger on? Your partner.....or the other person? In regards to cheating on a partner, what are your views, what would be your reason for staying, leaving, forgiving, understanding.....or even resorting to rage and violence? Which position would you take, and why? Just a simple, but yet complex, case study on the human condition! Thank you. (a.Hammerstein)
[BLOOD SUCKER Esquire] Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:12:37 PM
Here is a question that I would like to pose to all of you. You catch your partner cheating. It may be at a romantic dinner, a picture film, or another setting. A close friend of confidant informs you of this situation, or perhaps, you catch them in the act yourself. Whom do you take out your anger on? Your partner.....or the other person? In regards to cheating on a partner, what are your views, what would be your reason for staying, leaving, forgiving, understanding.....or even resorting to rage and violence? Which position would you take, and why? Just a simple, but yet complex, case study on the human condition! Thank you. (a.Hammerstein)
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:49:18 AM
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:44:41 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
I see. So youre like Robbie Williams then... You come undone.
Deep Freeze wrote:
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am UNDONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:44:41 AM
I see. So youre like Robbie Williams then... You come undone. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:34:21 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am UNDONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:34:21 AM
HA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am UNDONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:29:02 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:29:02 AM
Bad speller? I protest in the strongest possible terms! My spelling is as perfect as my overall mastery of a West-Germanic language, commonly known as English. Which means that by insulting me, you, good sir, are indeed a serf! A plague upon thee, and may your head grow as devoid of hair as my spelling is devoid of mistakes.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
A..uh... A POOR GRADE upon you, bad speller!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:21:18 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
A baldness upon you, hair owner!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:20:10 AM
Chocolate ice cream is absolutely the best. If it wasnt for chocolate ice cream, the vannilla hordes, with their strawberry goons, would take over the world. Its because of chocolates victory at Haselnutgrad that you are here. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:17:42 AM)
As for the taxes, the idea is to tax the rich. Minimum wage earners pay a lot less (percentwise, since we still have some sort of a progressive taxation), and that would stay as it is, or (by a separate proposition, to combat the current crisis), wouldnt pay tax at all, just the compulsory contributions for healthcare and pensions.
Now, high earners may move away... On the other hand, they might not. We used to have very high taxes on businesses, and there were few cases of them moving out.
Head banger wrote:
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:20:09 AM
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No, no!! How about this....
A TAX upon you, wage earner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant!
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:18:04 AM
A pox? Come on... I know you can do better than that and serf is sooo 200 years ago... You should modernise. Like... A swine flu upon you, immigrant! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:10:24 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[Head banger] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:17:42 AM
ah. dunno
btw, chocolate icecream is no good. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:08:23 AM)
As for the taxes, the idea is to tax the rich. Minimum wage earners pay a lot less (percentwise, since we still have some sort of a progressive taxation), and that would stay as it is, or (by a separate proposition, to combat the current crisis), wouldnt pay tax at all, just the compulsory contributions for healthcare and pensions.
Now, high earners may move away... On the other hand, they might not. We used to have very high taxes on businesses, and there were few cases of them moving out.
Head banger wrote:
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:10:24 AM
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! A pox upon thee, serf!!! HAAAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:09:23 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans...
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:09:23 AM
Well, thats what happens when the political scene is dominated by old people, who know how to calculate loans... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Deep Freeze from Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:45:58 AM)
Deep Freeze wrote:
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
As for the taxes, the idea is to tax the rich. Minimum wage earners pay a lot less (percentwise, since we still have some sort of a progressive taxation), and that would stay as it is, or (by a separate proposition, to combat the current crisis), wouldnt pay tax at all, just the compulsory contributions for healthcare and pensions.
Now, high earners may move away... On the other hand, they might not. We used to have very high taxes on businesses, and there were few cases of them moving out. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:01:49 AM)
Head banger wrote:
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Head banger] Sunday, June 14, 2009 9:01:49 AM
ok, short post
which canadian city was it?
do you tax all the min wage earners, then pay them back with the GMI
if you raise taxes on high earning individuals, probably businesses as well, dont you think it likely that those people move to a new area?
[Deep Freeze] Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:45:58 AM
No! They wouldn't! AND.... that is just the way it is ( *throwing my hands up..**) HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!! [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:34:44 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:34:44 AM
Thats true, I guess. I just did the maths for us - lets say that GMI is 300€/month, and with a population of 2 million, that means 600 million € per month... Or per year, it means more than 3/4 of the entire budget.
IDK, I still think it would be possible. Those loopholes can be closed, but considering that we would have to tax the rich... Well, it would be a political decision, and since politicians themselves are rich, I dont think they will decide for it. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:10:46 AM)
ronhartsell wrote:
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds...
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[ron h] Sunday, June 14, 2009 8:10:46 AM
axing the rich is getting harde and harde to do...IRS and government leave a million loop holes for the wealthiest to protect their money...not including offshore accts...it all sounds great in theory, but it practicality, it won't work for lack of funds... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:44:19 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off.
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Sunday, June 14, 2009 6:44:19 AM
I agree, and thats why I like the idea of GMI. Now, the minimum wage here is a joke too. 500€ total, which means that the worker gets about 300€. Which if you are single and have the good fortune of owning your home, is enough for a basic survival. If you have kids, and a rent/loan payments to pay, its imposibble to get through the month without welfare.
Now, GMI would be set somewhere between 200€ and 400€, and it doesnt matter if you have any other source of income. So, that means that for someone with a minimum wage, the overall income would double. If you have kids, they would get GMI too, which means even more money. Of course, I dont doubt that GMI wont happen anytime soon. So far there were a few articles in the press, and a TV debate about it, but nothing more serious.
As for funding, taxing the rich would be enough, imo. And a bit more responsibility in managing the budget (which usualy means less toys for the military, and Im always in favour of that), and I think we could pull it off. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:21:47 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,,
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[ron h] Saturday, June 13, 2009 6:21:47 PM
My goal would be to create a system that keeps everyone above the poverty level, and that would include those that work...minimumwage in the States is a joke...the problem would be funding it all, I mean, we're talking serious bank here...how could this be pulled off?? Even taxing the wealthiest would only put a dent in what would be needed,,, [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:40:28 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Saturday, June 13, 2009 12:40:28 PM
Ok... Crime seems to be sooo 2 days ago, so how about a new topic...
GMI - Guaranteed minimum income. A proposal of a system that would replace the current welfare systems. Each citizen/inhabitant (depending on the proposition) of a certain country gets a certain amount of money each month - old, young, employed, unemployed, rich, poor, married, single, doesnt matter. Everybody gets a specified amount of money.
Basicaly the idea is that it would help redistribute the wealth - if such a system would be instituted, rich would be more highly taxed, therefore they would pay in taxes much more than they would get through GMI. Thats one way, or if you happen to have oil, you can do like Alaska, and fund it through oil profits (Alaska along with a village in Namibia are the only cases of that in practice - there was a Canadian city in the 1970s that had it, but has since abolished it).
On the other hand, the minimum wage would have to be a lot higher than GMI, so that work would still pay off more than simply staying at home and collecting the money.
[_strat_] Friday, June 12, 2009 1:58:25 PM
"Your problem is that you insist on thinking!" Delboy Trotter, Only fools and horses
Im all for it. But, it would be a big change, so lets do it gradualy. For a start, we can just absolve me from obeying any laws.
Head banger wrote:
sure, lets try that?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.
Head banger wrote:
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
Im all for it. But, it would be a big change, so lets do it gradualy. For a start, we can just absolve me from obeying any laws.
Head banger wrote:
sure, lets try that?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.
Head banger wrote:
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
[_strat_] Friday, June 12, 2009 10:55:40 AM
Im all for it. But, it would be a big change, so lets do it gradualy. For a start, we can just absolve me from obeying any laws. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Thursday, June 11, 2009 11:15:59 PM)
Head banger wrote:
sure, lets try that?
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.
Head banger wrote:
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
[_strat_] Friday, June 12, 2009 10:54:37 AM
You misspelled his name, lol... You seem to be under his influence.
Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.
Head banger wrote:
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.
Head banger wrote:
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
[ron h] Thursday, June 11, 2009 7:49:33 PM
Then everybody would be all Keyed up!!! lol [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:55:53 PM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law.
Head banger wrote:
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
[_strat_] Thursday, June 11, 2009 4:55:53 PM
Well, thats the ultimate truth of it, I guess. So long as there are rules, people will break them. The "solution" would be to scrap all constitutions and all criminal law. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by Head banger from Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:30:12 AM)
Head banger wrote:
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
[Head banger] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 11:30:12 AM
I think that a root cause of a lot of crime is power. Rape was mentioned, as was drug use, both are an atempt to get or feel powerfull. people join gangs for a sense of power and belonging. now a cure to that, I dont know. Religion isnt the answer, and I dont think that just curing poverty is, although its a nice dream.
[_strat_] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 10:33:13 AM
Yup. I imagine that there are plenty of new "type ones" in these times.
As for the drug addicts, we would have to find out why they are what they are, I guess. Again, I doubt that a normal person with a normal and functional life will just wake up one day and say "Well, my lifes all fine, but I think Im going to become a drug addict, and rob people to get money for crack." [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:31:02 AM)
ronhartsell wrote:
I'd agree that the poorest have the highest crime rate, but I also think there are two distinctive types of criminals in the poorer communities...there's the father who steal's from the grocery store to feed his family...then there's the guy that rob's a gas station to support his drug habit...both are criminal acts and punishable by law (especially if a weapon was used while commiting the crime)...one criminal is a job away from being an respectable citizen again, the other has a whole slew of issues going on, especially if someone is killed during the act...
_strat_ wrote:
Well... To be honest, the idea seems fascist more than anything to me. The first association I got was Orwells 1984 with its "crimethink", "unpersons", "newspeak"... ect.
Honestly, I dont know shit about genes, but I doubt that it really comes to that. I think it has more to do with the circumstances we live in, the upbringing we get, and not the least the social status that we have. I dont think that its a coincidence that the poorest areas are usualy the most criminal ones. That was what I was refering to. Studying the conditions in which criminals "develop", and trying to do something about that.
Basicly, we are all brought up to certain moral norms. Dont kill is probably the most important one, and the fact that most of us have those norms kind of in our subconscience is, imo, the biggest detterent. You dont kill - why? Because you just dont. And if you would really want (or have) to kill someone, I doubt that the threat of punishment would stop you. Or me, or anyone for that matter.
ronhartsell wrote:
I'm not much of a Tom Cruise fan myself, but you bring up an interesting idea, here is an overview of the movie...it's one you might like...
Now, of course this is just a movie...but what if medical research discovered a gene that showed anyone born with this particular gene would become a violent criminal...how could, and more importantly, would society use this information to weed out the bad apples before the crime(s) were commited?? Maybe studying convicted violent criminals in the world of medical research isn't such a bad idea after all!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Nope. Havent seen it. Top Gun - the only Tom Cruise movie that I liked. I dont really like the guy generaly.
As for my post - well, what I wanted to say is that we would probably be more succesfull if we try to stop crime than punish it. Prevention, kinda like in medicine. Better to get a shot against a disease, then to get infected. Trying to figure out (Im sure that part at least wouldnt be hard) why criminals commit crimes, and try to do something about that. But, I guess that that is a bit much to expect. Then again, if we could crawl out of the medieval torture chambers, I guess we may someday come to that.
ronhartsell wrote:
Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?? That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...
_strat_ wrote:
Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
Head banger wrote:
no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
_strat_ wrote:
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
Head banger wrote:
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
_strat_ wrote:
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
Head banger wrote:
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
_strat_ wrote:
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
_strat_ wrote:
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
ronhartsell wrote:
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?
[ron h] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:31:02 AM
I'd agree that the poorest have the highest crime rate, but I also think there are two distinctive types of criminals in the poorer communities...there's the father who steal's from the grocery store to feed his family...then there's the guy that rob's a gas station to support his drug habit...both are criminal acts and punishable by law (especially if a weapon was used while commiting the crime)...one criminal is a job away from being an respectable citizen again, the other has a whole slew of issues going on, especially if someone is killed during the act... [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by _strat_ from Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:02:55 AM)
_strat_ wrote:
Well... To be honest, the idea seems fascist more than anything to me. The first association I got was Orwells 1984 with its "crimethink", "unpersons", "newspeak"... ect.
Honestly, I dont know shit about genes, but I doubt that it really comes to that. I think it has more to do with the circumstances we live in, the upbringing we get, and not the least the social status that we have. I dont think that its a coincidence that the poorest areas are usualy the most criminal ones. That was what I was refering to. Studying the conditions in which criminals "develop", and trying to do something about that.
Basicly, we are all brought up to certain moral norms. Dont kill is probably the most important one, and the fact that most of us have those norms kind of in our subconscience is, imo, the biggest detterent. You dont kill - why? Because you just dont. And if you would really want (or have) to kill someone, I doubt that the threat of punishment would stop you. Or me, or anyone for that matter.
ronhartsell wrote:
I'm not much of a Tom Cruise fan myself, but you bring up an interesting idea, here is an overview of the movie...it's one you might like...
Now, of course this is just a movie...but what if medical research discovered a gene that showed anyone born with this particular gene would become a violent criminal...how could, and more importantly, would society use this information to weed out the bad apples before the crime(s) were commited?? Maybe studying convicted violent criminals in the world of medical research isn't such a bad idea after all!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Nope. Havent seen it. Top Gun - the only Tom Cruise movie that I liked. I dont really like the guy generaly.
As for my post - well, what I wanted to say is that we would probably be more succesfull if we try to stop crime than punish it. Prevention, kinda like in medicine. Better to get a shot against a disease, then to get infected. Trying to figure out (Im sure that part at least wouldnt be hard) why criminals commit crimes, and try to do something about that. But, I guess that that is a bit much to expect. Then again, if we could crawl out of the medieval torture chambers, I guess we may someday come to that.
ronhartsell wrote:
Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?? That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...
_strat_ wrote:
Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
Head banger wrote:
no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
_strat_ wrote:
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
Head banger wrote:
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
_strat_ wrote:
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
Head banger wrote:
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
_strat_ wrote:
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
_strat_ wrote:
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
ronhartsell wrote:
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?
[_strat_] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 8:02:55 AM
Well... To be honest, the idea seems fascist more than anything to me. The first association I got was Orwells 1984 with its "crimethink", "unpersons", "newspeak"... ect.
Honestly, I dont know shit about genes, but I doubt that it really comes to that. I think it has more to do with the circumstances we live in, the upbringing we get, and not the least the social status that we have. I dont think that its a coincidence that the poorest areas are usualy the most criminal ones. That was what I was refering to. Studying the conditions in which criminals "develop", and trying to do something about that.
Basicly, we are all brought up to certain moral norms. Dont kill is probably the most important one, and the fact that most of us have those norms kind of in our subconscience is, imo, the biggest detterent. You dont kill - why? Because you just dont. And if you would really want (or have) to kill someone, I doubt that the threat of punishment would stop you. Or me, or anyone for that matter. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:15:22 AM)
ronhartsell wrote:
I'm not much of a Tom Cruise fan myself, but you bring up an interesting idea, here is an overview of the movie...it's one you might like...
Now, of course this is just a movie...but what if medical research discovered a gene that showed anyone born with this particular gene would become a violent criminal...how could, and more importantly, would society use this information to weed out the bad apples before the crime(s) were commited?? Maybe studying convicted violent criminals in the world of medical research isn't such a bad idea after all!!!!
_strat_ wrote:
Nope. Havent seen it. Top Gun - the only Tom Cruise movie that I liked. I dont really like the guy generaly.
As for my post - well, what I wanted to say is that we would probably be more succesfull if we try to stop crime than punish it. Prevention, kinda like in medicine. Better to get a shot against a disease, then to get infected. Trying to figure out (Im sure that part at least wouldnt be hard) why criminals commit crimes, and try to do something about that. But, I guess that that is a bit much to expect. Then again, if we could crawl out of the medieval torture chambers, I guess we may someday come to that.
ronhartsell wrote:
Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?? That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...
_strat_ wrote:
Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
Head banger wrote:
no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
_strat_ wrote:
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
Head banger wrote:
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
_strat_ wrote:
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
Head banger wrote:
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
_strat_ wrote:
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
_strat_ wrote:
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
ronhartsell wrote:
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?
[ron h] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 7:15:22 AM
I'm not much of a Tom Cruise fan myself, but you bring up an interesting idea, here is an overview of the movie...it's one you might like...
Now, of course this is just a movie...but what if medical research discovered a gene that showed anyone born with this particular gene would become a violent criminal...how could, and more importantly, would society use this information to weed out the bad apples before the crime(s) were commited?? Maybe studying convicted violent criminals in the world of medical research isn't such a bad idea after all!!!!
Nope. Havent seen it. Top Gun - the only Tom Cruise movie that I liked. I dont really like the guy generaly.
As for my post - well, what I wanted to say is that we would probably be more succesfull if we try to stop crime than punish it. Prevention, kinda like in medicine. Better to get a shot against a disease, then to get infected. Trying to figure out (Im sure that part at least wouldnt be hard) why criminals commit crimes, and try to do something about that. But, I guess that that is a bit much to expect. Then again, if we could crawl out of the medieval torture chambers, I guess we may someday come to that.
ronhartsell wrote:
Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?? That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...
_strat_ wrote:
Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
Head banger wrote:
no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
_strat_ wrote:
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
Head banger wrote:
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
_strat_ wrote:
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
Head banger wrote:
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
_strat_ wrote:
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
_strat_ wrote:
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
ronhartsell wrote:
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?
[_strat_] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:55:35 AM
I agree that in some cases, money is the motive. But I dont see how that would be the case in rape, for example.
Crime is caused by currency. If we could move past currency i think crime would fall dramatically. Think of all the crimes that revolve around money.
_strat_ wrote:
Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
Head banger wrote:
no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
_strat_ wrote:
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
Head banger wrote:
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
_strat_ wrote:
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
Head banger wrote:
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
_strat_ wrote:
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
_strat_ wrote:
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
ronhartsell wrote:
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?
[_strat_] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 5:53:20 AM
Nope. Havent seen it. Top Gun - the only Tom Cruise movie that I liked. I dont really like the guy generaly.
As for my post - well, what I wanted to say is that we would probably be more succesfull if we try to stop crime than punish it. Prevention, kinda like in medicine. Better to get a shot against a disease, then to get infected. Trying to figure out (Im sure that part at least wouldnt be hard) why criminals commit crimes, and try to do something about that. But, I guess that that is a bit much to expect. Then again, if we could crawl out of the medieval torture chambers, I guess we may someday come to that. [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 6:42:06 PM)
ronhartsell wrote:
Have you seen the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?? That's what came to mind reading the end of your post...if we could do that, there would be no crime...
_strat_ wrote:
Depends on the motive, I guess. Like I said, punishment for the sake of punishment doesnt do anything. Hell, we are Europe, we are old... For 1500 years my nation lived here, and in that time we had it all. Inquisuition, torture and executions in hundreds of ways, untold repressions of criminals... And none worked. Thats one of the reasons why nations started to abandon capital punishment. It just doesnt work. You can do anything you like, people will still commit crimes. We can only do our best to keep it as low as possible.
IDK, maybe getting into why people commit crimes and try to do something about that would be a better idea.
Head banger wrote:
no. and cutting of the theifs hand is a bit much also. but if they dont get some punishment they will do it again/
_strat_ wrote:
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
Head banger wrote:
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
_strat_ wrote:
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
Head banger wrote:
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
_strat_ wrote:
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be. There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
ronhartsell wrote:
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
_strat_ wrote:
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
ronhartsell wrote:
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
_strat_ wrote:
Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then?
[Jpz #1 fan] Tuesday, June 09, 2009 2:16:05 AM
El Salvadors new president was sworn at the start of the month...should be a nice new social change after 20yrs of conservative let downs.
