"actually was the british that started it by stealing land in the first place so the Jews could have a country of their own." That's funny because my history book said that the British won that land from the Ottoman Empire in a war the Ottoman Empire was involved in, allied to the agressors.
"If tomorrow, we have a nation-wide referendum of the Patriot Act, and the people choose to reject it, how would you feel if legislators simply went back to work Monday and passed it back into law again?" For me that answer depends on the constitution of the country where such a referendum happens. In Germany, for example, referanda are not part of the democratic process and I would support sticking to the constitution and make laws in the way the constitution demands it, regardless of
"Um, but that is validating your values as being objective, isn't it? Or at least branding those who disagree with you as ignorant of "objective facts"..." Do you agree or disagree that moral values are based on observation of and a reaction to objective reality? If you agree, you know the answer. And, yes, some people sometimes are ignorant of objective facts. If you disagree, you can only believe me when I say that I think
How is WinFX implemented? Is it a new subsystem like Win32 or is it running on top of Win32?
"and here was me down here in New Zealand thinking it was Israel that was just returning land they stole all those years ago." I would assume that in New Zealand it should be possible to read a history book. The land you refer to was Egyptian and Jordanian until they attacked Israel and lost it. Similar things happened between Germany and Poland in the 1940s. Look up Pommerania and Prussia. Or perhaps your definition of "stea
"I like the Vista look and i think it's much prettier than the boring Aqua theme of OS X" That's what they said about Luna.
I think this looks a lot like Mac OS X. Do customers expect that now?
"For me the base question before committing our military is HOW did the Iraq War make America Safer?" Good point. Certainly a better point that worrying about Iraqi lives now that fewer are lost every month. Ok, so how did the Iraq War make America safer. (I assume you don't care about safety for America's allies.) 1. For all the world knew Iraq could have still had chemical weapons. We don't know what happened to them in the
"Considering how many people the bush regime are murdering," 26,000 in Iraq according to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/, and that includes mostly the victims of terrorist attacks. We on the right are sad that the Ba'athists and Islamofascists still kill that many people but we are happy that they now kill fewer than before the invasion. That answer is easy. The complicated part is the question of how many people the Ba'athists would have to kill during American occupati
I wonder how many people one has to murder so that one's regime becomes acceptable to the left?
"To all those who say life is now so hunky dory in Iraq, I suggest you go live there." It is interesting how news of Iraq get worse the further you are away from it. When I read news written by Iraqis or translated from Iraqi newspapers, the situation looks very good. In the western press, the situation looks unstable but improving. And when you talk to lefties, Iraq is a bloodbath. Now, I actually grew up in a country occupied by the
And while we are at it, a "crime" is not defined as an act that some Democrats disagree with. As for war crimes, I suggest you read a history book. Attacking another country is not a war crime. That was never the problem. War crimes are a LOT worse than that. Alternatively, use this definition, like so many lefties seem to do: "war crime" noun The act of deposing a murderous dictator. The more lives are saved by this act, the worse is the crime.
"Nationalism and patriotic furvor and jingo attitudes like your will be this country's undoing. We cannot live alone, separated from the rest of the world, based on some sense of self-righteous and sanctimonious sense of a holier than though isolation from the rest of the world." Exactly! And that is why the US should intervene in other countries. Like I always said.
"So everyone's concience will lead them exactly where yours does?" You think so? I honestly don't know why the elected idiots voted the way they did. But they obviously disagreed with the idea that gay marriage is wrong. "what you really seem to be saying is that your admittedly subjective values trump those of the voters in California." I said no such thing. "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN OBJECTIVE SET OF VALUES."<BR
"This thread was not about the legality of gay marriage! It was about a bunch of elected "idiots" who think they know whats best for their constituents, even though the constituents said otherwise. And tried to over-ride what the voters voted for!" Ok. I withdraw the question. I see now that the actual subject the elected idiots and the voters decided about has nothing to do with the matter and should not be discussed. I must also admit that I am no longer very interested in wh
Alternatively, does anybody have an actual argument against gay marriage now?
Yes, Bakerstreet, that's exactly what I said. But you have convinced me. I repent. I admit that age of consent laws are arbitrary and not based on any such fact of nature as a difference between children and adults. I admit that tradition is a very good argument that completely explains why same-sex marriage should be illegal. I admit that no further explanation is necessary for a position once it has been established that it is a traditional
"Urm... why? Seriously, who made that rule, you? If we wanted to make it illegal to, say, walk backwards, why couldn't we? Would Zeus come down and stop us? You have to have a reason for your "musts" too, right? Why must we have a better explaination? What enforces that "must"?" Why? I explained it. The tradition argument can be used to defend racial segregation and opposition to gay marriage. Assuming that racial segregation is wrong, the tra
It is a fact of nature that children are unable to function as adults. They have to learn about the world first. The social value is the definition of what makes them adults. Commonly the rule is that when they reach 16, 18, or 21 (depending on the society), they are considered adults. There is no such fact of nature at the bottom of the social value that restricts marriage to straight couples. I agree that laws are mandated social va
Traditional western values are not the reason beating your wife is illegal. It was changes to the traditional values that are. Animals are not a part of society, so I cannot see an advantage for society if a member of society marries one. There is thus no particular reason for a law to specifically acknowledge such a union. That is, in the context of this discussion, a reason for rejecting animal marriages of that kind. But what is th
"the people of california VOTED that the definition of marraige is between one man and one woman. that is the poeples will," Isn't the idea of the separation of church and state that the people cannot impose that will on others?
"So, do you beleive that pedophilia and beastiality are defendable?" Well, since I argue that any position for or against a specific type of marriage must be supported by an argument other than "traditional values", this is exactly the kind of question I would ask you. For me it's easy enough to find arguments against pedophilia and bestiality. But then I always focused on only accepting reasonable arguments in the discussion as oppos
"Probably from where you post from. You can post to these articles from WinCustomize, Joe User, the Forums, and Political Machine." I always post from joeuser.com and the forums. Wincustomize and Political Machine are more sites for Windows users, I expect.
"Um, yep. No different for homosexuals. They can marry, just not people of the same sex. You believe that will change as it changed with race. I, personally, can't say. I mean, unless you believe we will eventually let anyone marry anyone/anything, there will be a line drawn somewhere." I believe it will change unless somebody can give a good reason for why it should not change. There will be a line drawn somewhere, but it will be at
(I'd really love to know why JoeUser keeps switching between displaying my name as "Leauki" and "Andrew J. Brehm".) Anyway, here's a few pointers: 1. Not legalising gay marriage is not against the constitution or equal rights, because no right is denied to gay people. They, as does everybody else, have the right to marry another (one) individual (members of the same species) of the opposite sex. That is the same right polygamists, fir
You're about to visit an external site:
Sign up here to get the latest news, updates, and special offers delivered directly to your inbox.
JoeUser Forums