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.
Why is murder a criminal act? What was the basis for its becoming a criminal act? It would be hard to convince me that it was based on anything other than the religious beliefs of our ancestors who identified it as a criminal act.
you're probably right.. but those religious beliefs certainly weren't christianity.. I'd venture to say those religious beliefs started WAY before christianity was even around.
I would guess that sometime durring the shift from nomadic humans towards civilization is where such beliefs started... Being governed by rules that they didn't have before when roaming free as hunter gatherers.. When seeking out an authority on such rules, implementing "religion" was a means of providing a story in context for following such rules. How else would you introduce a golden rule concept to people who have for thousands of years killed others before they killed them? When civilization began to take hold, I could see the need for a "training course" of sorts needed for people to understand issues in a civilized society.. Where a person disagreeing with you or angry at you isn't going to kill you.. so you don't have to kill them.. the context of human interaction changed with civilization... does it make religion the basis for such moral beliefs? perhaps.. your guess is as good as mine.. I wouldn't be surprised. But does it mean that human minds must have a religious doctrine to be able to understand why it isn't ok to kill other people in a civilized society? of course not.. and because that is what was used it therefore validates the absolute truth of that religion? of course not... it is what it is...
"Women who are vehemently pro-choice sometimes argue that "the men make the laws and abortion doesn't affect men, so they have no right to ban or even restrict it."
Why did you go from being a believer to Agnostic IF you dont mine me asking of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
Okay, TLV. Get ready to be angry.
Most of the difference in pay between men and women is due to their choice of work.
Women choose to have babies. And yes, they do sometimes have to put their careers on hold, and sometimes employers aren't happy about it. But no one forced them to have a baby in the first place.
Throughout the animal kingdom, there are inequalities between males and females. Sometimes the females are dominant; other times its the males. I think it's important to accept the differences between the sexes and the fact that men have their strengths and weaknesses, but women do as well. Perfect equality between the sexes is impossible.
And some employers do pay men more. Nothing to do with the job. I remember reading a report about how male professors got paid more than female ones. What about that?
Nope. Sometimes women dont choose to have babies. They get raped or accidents happen. This is why I am pro choice. In my eyes, it is sexist to make a woman have a child if she does not want it or if she was raped. They can be forced to have babies. And if she does not have babies, people begin to pressure her. And if she wanted to have the baby but the employers are not happy about it, should they fire her? I have seen it happen. It is very unfair to women that they have to suffer and get pregnant if they want children.
If perfect equality between the sexes is impossible which sex do you think is better?
Oh, whatever. You want to own a house, fine -- but this liberal (who happens to be in the group that pays the highest marginal tax rates) hates the idea of funding your tax deductions.
Fine, but society, and the government that represents the society, views home ownership as a beneficial thing for society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
You want to have your megachurches, fine -- just stop demanding that I fund their tax-exempt status.
I never go to church, and do not belong to a church, but even I can appreciate the beneficial charities performed by churches. Hey, if they want to fund soup kitchens, or take care of the orphans or homeless, more power to them
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
You want to tell teenagers that condoms and birth control pills don't work, fine -- but let's take the funds to pay the expenses associated with their unwanted pregnancies out of your earnings, not mine.
What makes you think you aren't reaching into our pockets?
WTF are you talking about? Where did I ever mention anything like this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Married people pay more taxes. Ever heard of the "marriage penalty"? Your statement is wholly disingenuous. All the screeching against gay marriage, and none of it is about taxes and expenses -- it's always about how "unnatural" it is and how marriages supposedly have been for the past 10 thousand years.
The tax code is written, so that if I am the only source of income, I will pay less in taxes then a single person earning the exact same income. Why is that? Because, government is an extension of society, and our society understands that married couples make babies, not all, but the vast majority do, so society is willing to give them tax breaks, and even offer discounts and assistance, because society realizes that its future is benefited if families thrive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Same as above -- the garden-variety objections to abortion and birth control have nothing to do with funding them, and everything to do with controlling women's sexual behavior based on the conservative notions of morality.
Don’t try to fit me in with the square pegs you usually toss about.
I could care a lick, what women do in their free time, just don’t demand that I pay for their IUD, pills, or condoms, or abortions, just so they aren’t “punished with a babyâ€.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
As far as money goes, keeping abortion and birth control legal will ensure that women can be financially self-sufficient. Unwanted pregnancies and lack of control over their sexuality keeps women poor, dependent, and most likely to become public charges -- which, contrary to your statement, is the real objective of most conservatives in this regard. If you don't want your money to be spent on account of someone else's hanky-panky, don't vote for politicians who would ban abortion and birth control.
And to do this, I am forced by government to reach in my pocket, and pay for their decisions???? I could care less if a woman wants to have sex, or not, but do not claim I need to pay for their abortions, IUDs or birth control medicines or devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
That's fine with me, provided you construct a bubble around your gas-guzzling Hummer, and live in it. But as long as it's everybody's environment you are destroying, makes sense you should pitch in to keep it livable.
LOL You want to drive a ethanol vehicle, or whatever the environmental wacko vehicle of the week is, fine, but do not demand that government force me to subsidize it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
How about ... not imposing any restrictions on private behavior between consenting adults that does not pose a physical threat to anyone else? That's a liberal idea, and completely contrary to conservative ideas in this regard. (Of course, you'd have to accept the principle that your freedoms and liberties do not include authority over other people.) How about not using tax money to promote religion under the guise of "science"?
This is all smoke screen, because you cannot name a liberal idea or cause that does not require ME giving up my liberty, income, or rights, in order to allow you to have it….. at my expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redisca
Here is the thing, Wapasha: if there is a problem, and you refuse to fix it, don't complain when others fix it for you.
That is the problem with liberals, they require me, to suborn my life, restrict my liberties, curtail my freedoms, and steal my money, in order for them to have their desires on this earth.
It is generally accepted that murder is wrong. This is a belief that is founded in religion. It's in the Ten Commandments that are the cornerstone of many religions. Should we not teach that murder is wrong simply because it originated from a religious belief?
This is what I mean when I speak about things with a religious origin. I am not speaking about anything that promotes or establishes any particular religion, just about things that are now commonly accepted that originated in religious beliefs.
Of course, murder is wrong, but you said that "intelligent design" should be taught as an equally possible theory alongside evolution. That's lunacy to me. If intelligent design is taught in public schools, it should be in a religion class, not a science class.
Now now. I did not say women did not have rights. Simply that pro lifers do not believe in womens rights. See the difference?
I do believe the extreme prolifers who put fetus above mothers life are anti woman and trying to take her rights.
Even know, women are not respected as much as men. Men get paid more, men are promoted much faster and easier. On top of it, women get pregnant. When they do, they have to put their whole career on hold, they risk losing their jobs because the employer is not happy about it, etc, etc....
These facts are undeniable.
Pro-lifers do believe in women's rights. The issue is that pro-lifers feel that the fetus is deserving of its own rights. And, actually, even most pro-choicers feel that the fetus should attain its own rights at some point during the pregnancy.
You say "women get pregnant" as if the mere scientific fact that females become pregnant is sexist. It's biology and beyond anyone's control.
Women and men are respected differently. You may obsessively focus on a lack of respect in one situation, whereas a man may fall "victim" to a lack of respect in another situation and you may not even realize it.
As far as the workforce, I have to agree with you somewhat. But, there are several reasons for it beyond simple discrimination - men and women going into different fields, men being more willing to devote more time to work, etc.
You also have affirmative action to help you in many areas.
Why did you go from being a believer to Agnostic IF you dont mine me asking of course.
I was never a true believer. I convinced myself that God existed and all that, while questioning it constantly for years. I simply switched to calling myself Agnostic because I realized I'll never know. And I am not the type of person, BTW, who can ever accept not knowing anything, so it's difficult.
There are literally millions of Democrats / liberals (and conservatives of course) who are very religious - and vote based, in part, on their religious beliefs. It is human nature to vote for someone who shares your core values.
Oh really, then why did the majority of Catholics vote for 0bama? It's more of a question for them, and nothing against you personally.
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.
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.
