U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: As a Marylander, would you support Ben Carson for a GOP Presidential Bid in 2016?
Yes 16 38.10%
No 21 50.00%
I don't know who Ben Carson is 5 11.90%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-01-2013, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Maryland not Murlin
8,185 posts, read 21,737,838 times
Reputation: 6116

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
But then those things would be under the assumption that we all think the same. That we all have the same logic and the same understanding of science. The problem with that thinking, is that you will still have the same issue that you are stating is the issues with someone that based their views on their religious beliefs. There is nothing that states that it's wrong to form your political views on your beliefs. I honestly believe it's impossible to make a decision about laws without having a sense of morality, which we all get from our religious beliefs, whether you consider those beliefs as a part of an organized religion or your won concocted ideology.
As a scientist, I can say that the only science-related dogma that scientists hold onto is that what we know is only based on current understandings. We all know that what we accept as "true" today could very well be proven wrong tomorrow.

Most, if not all, form political views on individual beliefs-and those beliefs are shaped by our environment and experiences. Perhaps if I grew up in Arizona, I would have a different perspective on life,and as such, possibly different politics, too.

I agree that morality needs to be at work behind our laws and other decisions, too. However, I very much disagree with the notion that morality stems from Religious ideology seeing as how most Humanists are also atheists, and, how can one Religious group claim morality when they, perhaps not as a whole, that "their" God only favors their group, yet, not others. In particular when they claim their God is all loving? Any rational person can see the problem here. However, this is a conversation for the Atheism sub-forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
For example, logically if you go to someone in a third world country with a rolex watch on, they are going to likely take it, sell it and live off of the profit. To them, this is a means of survival and necessary action. For you, you may logically consider this to be wrong and demand that this person is punished. How do we determine that stealing is wrong? How does your opinion trump the one that has a different background, different culture and a different understanding of right and wrong?
You can't, unless you want to impose your own ideal of what is right and wrong. That is exactly why we have, and must continue to have, separation of Church and State, a more-than-one Party political system, a House/Senate/President, State/county/town governments, etc. It is all to help ensure that no one particular set of ideals rules all.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I would be interested in having a scientist President, and would consider Dr. Carson depending on where he stands on issues...and how much I think he BSing; just like any other Presidential candidate I would consider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2013, 04:36 PM
 
14 posts, read 12,393 times
Reputation: 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by e30is View Post
My thoughts exactly. He's not even from MD, he's from Detroit.
He was born in Detroit, but obviously lived in MD for over 25 years, while working as a pediatric brain surgeon at JHU. He pays a lot of taxes to MD, and thoroughly enjoys living in this area, so he should be accepted fully.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2013, 05:08 PM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,211,573 times
Reputation: 3176
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv View Post
As a scientist, I can say that the only science-related dogma that scientists hold onto is that what we know is only based on current understandings. We all know that what we accept as "true" today could very well be proven wrong tomorrow.

Most, if not all, form political views on individual beliefs-and those beliefs are shaped by our environment and experiences. Perhaps if I grew up in Arizona, I would have a different perspective on life,and as such, possibly different politics, too.
That is what makes science as not a basis for making decision on laws. And I'm sure you can agree that one of the issues with science, especially in modern times, is procedures can easily be manipulated for that particular scientists to create the result that he/she desires. That is the reason why we have such extremely opposing views on topic such as if homosexuality is genetic or environmental.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv View Post
I agree that morality needs to be at work behind our laws and other decisions, too. However, I very much disagree with the notion that morality stems from Religious ideology seeing as how most Humanists are also atheists, and, how can one Religious group claim morality when they, perhaps not as a whole, that "their" God only favors their group, yet, not others. In particular when they claim their God is all loving? Any rational person can see the problem here. However, this is a conversation for the Atheism sub-forum.
You are taking the notion that atheists don't have their own set of beliefs. They may not have a sacred book that they follow or have a uniform set of beliefs, but atheists have beliefs of what is right or wrong just like anyone else. We have to get out of this idea that religion is categorized. Everyone has a religion whether we want to see that way or not. We all have ideas of what we believe is right or wrong, it just may not be in the name of a certain title.

In regards to the other point, having a view on laws based on what you believe is simply your opinion, it doesn't mean that you are trying to force someone to believe what you believe. There is the problem that people bring up about separating church and state. They feel as though, if someone has views that they do not agree with, then that person is imposing their views on them. No they are exercising their right to express their opinion. It just so happens that more people might agree with them than you. Is that wrong? The minority wants the rest of the country to belief that this is wrong, but this is what democracy is all about.

I have no idea what religion you are referring to by the way, but again, we can't change what people believe is right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv View Post
You can't, unless you want to impose your own ideal of what is right and wrong. That is exactly why we have, and must continue to have, separation of Church and State, a more-than-one Party political system, a House/Senate/President, State/county/town governments, etc. It is all to help ensure that no one particular set of ideals rules all.

As I wrote in an earlier post, I would be interested in having a scientist President, and would consider Dr. Carson depending on where he stands on issues...and how much I think he BSing; just like any other Presidential candidate I would consider.
Agreed, which was my earlier point in this post. The point of my anecdote was to show that the poster's flawed thinking that logic, science, statistics and facts will somehow allow us to set a foundation for laws in this country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2013, 07:39 PM
 
Location: The Heart of Dixie
6,525 posts, read 11,614,071 times
Reputation: 3944
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv View Post
I agree that the issue of marriage between same-sex couples should not be the #1 issue, but it should be an issue. You know, there was a point in time when women, blacks, heck-even poor white males, had little-to-no rights. Even back around the time The Bill of Rights and The Constitution were wrote, only white males who owned property really had any say in...anything. And prior to that, the Puritans had a vice-grip-like hold on everything that was considered moral and right. Not only did they not really dig Catholics and other types of Christians, they definitely would have thought you were a weirdo. Ironic, huh. Much has changed and what, you, I, or anyone else thinks of the matter, so will "gay marriage".

I am not sure of the entire platform O'Malley ran on, but I doubt it had to do with "gay marriage", assault weapons ban (well, maybe), the Dream Act, etc. O'Malley ran a "tough on crime" campaign when he was gunning for Mayorship of Baltimore, and while under his watch, crime in that city was reduced by something like 40%. A big accomplishment. Esquire magazine also named him the Best Mayor in the U.S., or something like that around 2002, Time named him a Top Five mayor, and a few others. I'm sure that had more to do with his future tenure as Governor of Maryland than removing the death penalty.
O'Malley reduced crime in Baltimore City by pushing it into the suburbs. But he certainly has a VERY far left fringe radical agenda......if you combine EVERYTHING he has done.....illegal alien licenses, illegal alien Dream Act, gay marriage, all the taxes, the wind power, the death penalty, gun control, cell phone driving ban, expanding Medicaid elgibility.....all of these things together, plus increasing the tolls which is a tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2013, 07:56 PM
rfp
 
337 posts, read 548,826 times
Reputation: 254
Quote:
Originally Posted by HandsUpThumbsDown View Post
... Except a 3rd party candidate stands no chance at all to win.
Unfortunately, that is the problem. I voted a protest vote for Jill Stein (Green Party) in 2012. Obama is more right-wing than G. W. Bush. At least Bush did not lie to us during his election campaigns; OBama lied continuously, about public option health care, end of Bush tax cuts on the rich, etc., etc.

On April 10th, 2013, OBama will release his presidential budget. In his budget he will propose decreasing yearly Social Security cost-of-living adjustments. He will be the only so-called "Democratic" president to suggest cutting Social Security benefits. And I will never vote Democratic again.

Sorry if I derailed the thread, but I am pretty steamed about Obama and his administration. Utter failure to us progressives.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 05:44 AM
 
Location: Warner Robins, GA
905 posts, read 2,215,943 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
In regards to the other point, having a view on laws based on what you believe is simply your opinion, it doesn't mean that you are trying to force someone to believe what you believe. There is the problem that people bring up about separating church and state. They feel as though, if someone has views that they do not agree with, then that person is imposing their views on them. No they are exercising their right to express their opinion. It just so happens that more people might agree with them than you. Is that wrong? The minority wants the rest of the country to belief that this is wrong, but this is what democracy is all about.
Supporting laws of exclusion like opposition of gay marraige is not expressing their opinion, it is the EXACT definition of imposing their views on someone else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 06:47 AM
 
Location: DMV
10,136 posts, read 11,211,573 times
Reputation: 3176
Quote:
Originally Posted by tercel95 View Post
Supporting laws of exclusion like opposition of gay marraige is not expressing their opinion, it is the EXACT definition of imposing their views on someone else.
But saying gay marriage is a right, is not imposing views on those that oppose? You don't see the hypocrisy in your statement and why saying that someone is imposing their views does not make sense. It's not about imposing views, it's about expressing what you believe is right or wrong.

Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you are excluding anyone. Let me tell you my views. The definition of marriage has long been defined before this country as being between a man and woman. This isn't even unique in the 'Christian religion', which people love to hark on. There are many other religions that share the same views and even worst will kill individuals who practice such behavior as homosexuality. With that said, I do not believe it is fair to change the definition of a word just to gain a right and just because there is a group of individuals that think it's unfair. There has to be justifiable reason. I'm sure there are many people who think taxes are unfair, so should we change the definition of taxes too? Should we re-define that so that those individuals get what they want?

Although I don't agree with homosexuality, I do not have opposition against civil unions. If under whatever system that you believe in, they deem you married under that system, so be it, but to say that we should change the meaning of a word is dangerous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 06:48 AM
 
581 posts, read 952,503 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Lennox 70 View Post
O'Malley reduced crime in Baltimore City by pushing it into the suburbs. But he certainly has a VERY far left fringe radical agenda......if you combine EVERYTHING he has done.....illegal alien licenses, illegal alien Dream Act, gay marriage, all the taxes, the wind power, the death penalty, gun control, cell phone driving ban, expanding Medicaid elgibility.....all of these things together, plus increasing the tolls which is a tax.
Far left fringe? Gay Marriage and the Dream Act were validated by statewide referendum so by definition you cannot call them fringe positions.

Banning the death penalty, cell phone driving ban, wind power, expanding medicaid are all popular mainstream positions in the state. None of the gun control measures are what I would consider extreme either.

Sorry Tom, you are the one on the fringe.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 06:49 AM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
32,106 posts, read 39,155,933 times
Reputation: 40515
Quote:
Originally Posted by ay jayy View Post
Far left fringe? Gay Marriage and the Dream Act were validated by statewide referendum so by definition you cannot call them fringe positions.

Banning the death penalty, cell phone driving ban, wind power, expanding medicaid are all popular mainstream positions in the state. None of the gun control measures are what I would consider extreme either.

Sorry Tom, you are the one on the fringe.

Fingerprinting isn't extreme?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2013, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Warner Robins, GA
905 posts, read 2,215,943 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgtvatitans View Post
But saying gay marriage is a right, is not imposing views on those that oppose? You don't see the hypocrisy in your statement and why saying that someone is imposing their views does not make sense. It's not about imposing views, it's about expressing what you believe is right or wrong.

Opposing gay marriage doesn't mean you are excluding anyone. Let me tell you my views. The definition of marriage has long been defined before this country as being between a man and woman. This isn't even unique in the 'Christian religion', which people love to hark on. There are many other religions that share the same views and even worst will kill individuals who practice such behavior as homosexuality. With that said, I do not believe it is fair to change the definition of a word just to gain a right and just because there is a group of individuals that think it's unfair. There has to be justifiable reason. I'm sure there are many people who think taxes are unfair, so should we change the definition of taxes too? Should we re-define that so that those individuals get what they want?

Although I don't agree with homosexuality, I do not have opposition against civil unions. If under whatever system that you believe in, they deem you married under that system, so be it, but to say that we should change the meaning of a word is dangerous.
It is a law of exclusion in that doesn't affect anyone except the people it is trying to help. If you don't agree with gay marraige you aren't unable to do anything you were before, nothing is being forced upon you.

Marraige is a religious institution but it is also a legal instituion and unfortunately they share the same name. A priest can marry you but so can a judge or even a boat captain. You get divorced in a civil court, not in a church. As far as the LEGAL institution of marraige why should any two adults be excluded from it?

Why isn't their such outcry over divorce?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top