This is one of the few places that i post where people actually can take things seriously, so id like your opinion on a few things. Just lemme know which one your responding to, you dont have to do all of them.
K ready?
1. Crime: In my opinion, we should up the punishment for crime, then there would be less of it. Like say get the death penalty a bit easier. If your intent was to kill, then you get it no matter what degree. (not saying that specifically though). Or double the time in jail for various offenses.
2. Animal Treatment: This kind of goes along with top one, but in my opinion, even if you dont do it with other crimes, you should atleast up the punishment for Domestic Animal Cruelty. The thing is, although animals are not nearly as important as humans, they still feel the pain a human does. And for the most part, i think the animal has it worse than a human when someone is doing something to it. The human understands whats going on, the animal does not.
3. Beginning of the Universe: I cant remember who it was who said in the evolution thread that evolution was a proven fact (im not trying to pick you out or say your wrong or anything) and i said you shouldnt call it a fact. Id like to bring that up again.
This goes for BOTH ways the universe came into be and the people who believe it, evolutionist or creationist. No one should call these facts. Why? Because not everyone agrees with it. Sure saying some ultimate being who can do anything created the universe in 6 days including us and there is a single book that answers all the worlds problems is a bit far fetched, but so is saying our complex life forms came from a single cell by chance, and before that the whole universe was smaller than a needle head and exploded in less than a second into what we know today. All im saying is, people should not call either versions a fact. Gravity is a fact. We revolve around the sun, thats a fact. Cheese is awesome, thats a fact. Its something for the most part everyone can agree too. Evolutionists can find proof of their version and Creationists can find proof of their version. Dont call either side a fact. THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE it.
I have decided to expand the issues, feel free to send me a PM for a request.
4. Gay Marriage: Whats your opinion on this subject? My opinion, they love each other like if not more than most Straight Couples, and atleast in the U.S. one of the main things is the Pursuit of Happiness and it does not really hurt anyone so i believe it should be allowed
5. Putting Humans Down: Cant think of any other way to say it (unrelated to animals). Injecting them with drugs to bring about their death, on the basis that they are in unbearable uncureable pain.
My opinion is also on this, yes. True, its kind of like suicide but let us say in the foreseeable future, there is no way to help that person. And every moment of their life would be in pain. And there is nothing they could do about it. IF that is true then i think you should be able to do that. BUT you must kind of work for it. As in like, get your family approval and a good amount of people whom inspect your case's approval. Those people being doctors of course.
QuoteCheese is awesome, thats a fact.
I don't know, I may have to dispute that :P
The only one I have a comment on is 3). I would have said that, given the massive amount of evidence for evolution and genetics and the lack of evidence to the contrary, that it IS a fact. Take evolution out of the picture, and genetics doesn't make any sense any more.
Something becomes considered a "fact" once it has been proven, and until it becomes proven to be incorrect. Evolution has been proven to be occurring. We are still waiting with great interest for the proof that it is not.
Crime:
We are already on the verge of totalitarianism in the western world. The last thing we need is to start putting people who don't deserve it away for longer. The death penalty should be reserved for only mass murderers, serial rapists and child molesters. Only the worst of the worst.
But we should speed up the executions of these evil people. (Unfortunately though the death penalty was abolished in Australia. There are some people who really deserve it here.)
Animal Treatment:
QuoteThe human understands whats going on, the animal does not.
I wouldn't go that far. We don't know that they don't understand exactly what is going on. How cruel somebody is being to them.
Beginning of the Universe:
The Universe as we call it is simply a huge accumulation of energy (and its accompanying forces) residing in the void.
It was created the same way that a planet is created. Energy is attracted to other energy and bonds together forming atoms. Atoms are attracted in the same way and bond together making particles... etc. Eventually it accumulates into the 'universe'.
Now here is the ultimate question: Where did energy come from?
Capital punishment is by and large more expensive for the state than imprisoning for life. It also can't be undone if new evidence proves innocence. IMO they should have induced coma for life as the capital punishment.
As for animals, sure you should be able to remove the abused animal from the abusers custody but too often i think the punishment is way out of line. An example is that dumbass show on animal planet. Animal police or something? Sure animal abuse is wrong, but most people that try to fight it are so misguided.
Quote from: ScarleTomato on March 14, 2009, 09:23:33 PM
Capital punishment is by and large more expensive for the state than imprisoning for life. It also can't be undone if new evidence proves innocence. IMO they should have induced coma for life as the capital punishment.
I meant only for those who it has been 100% proven that they were responsible... and have no remorse.
An induced coma is probably more expensive then putting them in prison.. because they need to be on a drip to keep them alive, and they need constant power to keep their life support operational.
QuoteAn induced coma is probably more expensive then putting them in prison.. because they need to be on a drip to keep them alive, and they need constant power to keep their life support operational.
you mean besides maintaining their grounds, feeding them, providing electricity and utilities, books television and other media?
They can maintain their own bloody grounds.
Feeding them bread and water is cheaper than a drip.
They don't need to use electricity 24/7.
Since when do inmates get TVs?
http://www.anonymousinmate.com/blog/2009/01/do-they-have-television-in-prison/
It depends on where you're at but most prisons don't feed you just bread and water, its not the best food, but its not the worst either. I'm not sure how much a drip would actually set you back but think about it. A drip supplies only the necessary nutrients, its much more efficient. You may be able to prove me wrong here, but I honestly don't see how it would be more expensive.
I would think it would cost less in security as well. A comatose prisoner is not going to revolt or try to split. You also wouldn't need near as much cell space, and none of the recreational space, weight room, cafeteria, or commons.
Amusing that the treatment of animals and prisoners should be discussed in the same thread. Sudden death is just fine for the innocent as long as we benefit from it...
Quote from: ScarleTomato on March 14, 2009, 09:56:16 PM
http://www.anonymousinmate.com/blog/2009/01/do-they-have-television-in-prison/
It depends on where you're at but most prisons don't feed you just bread and water, its not the best food, but its not the worst either. I'm not sure how much a drip would actually set you back but think about it. A drip supplies only the necessary nutrients, its much more efficient. You may be able to prove me wrong here, but I honestly don't see how it would be more expensive.
I would think it would cost less in security as well. A comatose prisoner is not going to revolt or try to split. You also wouldn't need near as much cell space, and none of the recreational space, weight room, cafeteria, or commons.
It probably costs heaps to actually extract the nutrients. Far more than just regular food.
Security would need to be just as strong. A jailbreak would mean somebody breaking in and taking prisoners with them, since they would be unable to move themselves after being out cold for so long.
Really the only difference with that to a regular prison would be that the criminals can't try and break out on their own.
And what about the morale issues? It really does seem like a Half-Life 2 style prison system doesn't it...
QuoteAnd what about the morale issues? It really does seem like a Half-Life 2 style prison system doesn't it...
indeed but were talking about death as the alternative
drips arent nutrients extracted from foods. You just create a solution that has everything you need. IIRC you can survive almost completely off of lemon juice and honey. In fact thats actually a diet plan that you can go on for weeks, even months.
QuoteReally the only difference with that to a regular prison would be that the criminals can't try and break out on their own.
One of the more frequent reasons for security is to prevent fights among the prisoners themselves.
The physical effects of a coma would cripple and kill the inmate within a few years, if any were found innocent the damages lawsuit would be very expensive, as would the crimes against humanity trial that would inevitably occur.
true its not a perfect solution, but just outright killing them doesn't really seem all that great either. And if it did finally turn into a lawsuit, maybe it would force a rethinking of the system that could lead to truer convictions in the future. The problem with killing them, is that even if they eventually turn out to be innocent, there's usually little to no improvement for the simple reason that it cost's to do so. Dead people can't sue for wrongdoings. Their family can, but it doesn't have as much impact, and its difficult to keep a case open after the perpetrator is dead.
There is also the problem of Laws vs Reality too.
A few years ago a couple I had known all of my life split up, The girl got a new boyfriend, someone I knew slightly. I think it was on my 3rd visit that he threatened to kill me, my crime in his eyes was simply knowing his new girlfriend. I did not report it (no witnesses) but had to live with this idiots threat.
Now I think I would have been entirely justified if I had just killed him ,on one of the many time's we met after this, to remove the threat to myself. But it would have been murder and in some country's I would forfeit my life for that.
The point is, The Law is frequently wrong, sometimes its very wrong, and sometimes it is used to actually commit crimes.
Putting people into coma's would remove and silence them. That silence would be very useful in the wrong hands.
QuotePutting people into coma's would remove and silence them.
killing them doesn't?
I agree the law is not always right. Guilty people can become innocent by laws being changed or new methods of determining evidence. The thing is, the death penalty is irreversible, period. At least inducing a coma introduces a chance of revival.
We could put them into pods and use them as batteries...
Quote from: mrtwosheds on March 14, 2009, 10:03:55 PM
Amusing that the treatment of animals and prisoners should be discussed in the same thread. Sudden death is just fine for the innocent as long as we benefit from it...
I said multiple issues, ok? Not one topic.
no RD, we aren't robots that forgot about solar power :P
Quote from: Warfreak on March 15, 2009, 12:45:21 AM
no RD, we aren't robots that forgot about solar power :P
Gah, dont tell him the plans, now we gots to deactivate you.
Beginning of universe.
I watched President Obama's speech the other day on bringing our kids up to speed with the other countries around the world and I like the effort he is putting into this. One of the things he said was that we we're going to put some of the old "stale" debates behind us and push forward without cluttering our kids minds with things that aren't going to help them in the business world so as to help insure the future is prepared to maintain the economy once we have corrected it. I am sure one of the things he was talking about was the evolution/creation debate. I would like to see this topic deleted from school agenda because it does not promote good education practices. Kids have no need to be talking of this. Instead they should have more education on things that matter in the real world. Instead of things that only cause questions to occur where there are no answers, which in turn cause kids to drop out of school thinking they've learned everything there is to know since the teacher can't answer their questions on the topic that has been brought forth. I would rather see these kids grow up, sitting in their living rooms and their children ask them how the world was created, and them say "it doesn't matter, we're here now, fill your mind with topics that matter".
The issue is really just one of weather or not some people will be allowed to suppress the knowledge and education available to others, I cannot recall anyone demanding that the religions desist from teaching their scriptures in their churches, the fact that they have been permitted to effect the teaching of science in schools is scandalous and damages the education of children.
Learning about how the world may have been created is the sort of subject that may inspire children to become interested in science and go on to discover truly useful things.
It would be a good idea to add Human psychology to the cericulum so they can learn about the devious power seeking motivations of those who wish to teach fairy stories instead of science.
I think the beginning of the world should be one of those "When your older" but, if you have been raised in a christian home you already know from birth.
Thank you for using "May have been" wouldnt care if you didnt though.
If you go back t the manuscripts, you would see that the original meaning in Genesis was that the world was "overthrown" and not "created". In other words, the Earth has existed for many, many billions of years and there have been many Earth "ages", replete with dinosaurs, footprints-in-stone, etc.
To simplify:
1. Lucifer - a beautiful creation of God - became jealous and vain and started a revolution in heaven amongst the angels when he was told to worship another creation of God's called "Man" and was booted out along with his angelic followers (now called demons).
2. Lucifer - "the serpent of old' - convinced Eve to partake of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', i.e., had sex with Lucifer. (no mention of apples in the Bible...)
3. Eve had sex with Adam and bore Able (seed of Adam) and bore Cain (seed of Lucifer).
4. Redemption from sin by God offering His only Son as a blood sacrifice so mankind could obtain - by choice - salvation.
5. We find ourselves here.
BTW, if you ever find yourself standing by the bedside of a terminally ill or injured loved one or find yourself in a foxhole, I *guarantee* you'll find yourself on your knees fervently praying to the God you now so vehemently shun.
QuoteBTW, if you ever find yourself standing by the bedside of a terminally ill or injured loved one or find yourself in a foxhole, I *guarantee* you'll find yourself on your knees fervently praying to the God you now so vehemently shun.
That is exactly the point. People believe in god because they are extremely scared of the possibility that he doesn't exist and wouldn't be the salvation they so desperately want for either themselves, or their friends and family.
One might
almost call it cowardly.
Quote from: bigbadbogie on March 16, 2009, 05:59:59 AM
That is exactly the point. People believe in god because they are extremely scared of the possibility that he doesn't exist and wouldn't be the salvation they so desperately want for either themselves, or their friends and family.
One might almost call it cowardly.
And your not sacred? Not being sarcastic or anything.
I have known this from birth, i know what the future holds.
Quote from: Red Devil on March 16, 2009, 05:42:59 AM
2. Lucifer - "the serpent of old' - convinced Eve to partake of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', i.e., had sex with Lucifer. (no mention of apples in the Bible...)
3. Eve had sex with Adam and bore Able (seed of Adam) and bore Cain (seed of Lucifer).
My impression was that it wasn't apples that they ate, but quinces, since apples was a mistranslation from whatever the word was (the romance languages keep it, in Spanish it's
membrillo, the English word that comes from it is marmelade, but we've lost the original meaning) in the Bible.
Wait though -- Remember, Eve didn't just "partake of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil' by herself, she saw that it was good and gave some to Adam. So, by extension of that interpretation, Adam also had sex with Lucifer.
Not to offend RD but where did you get this information from about eve having sex with lucifer? No apples mentioned, but is fruit not mentioned? And doesn't it say that God created this tree? If there was no 'thing' of life then what do these manuscripts describe God creating. I don't claim to be able to read the actual language, but without some empirical evidence this seems like a pretty shallow interpretation.
I fully understand that the bible certainly cant be taken verbatim, especially a translation of it, but it kinda seems like a stretch.
Edit:
If you're referring to this Divine Principle (http://www.geocities.com/craigmaxim/t-3a.html) thing, (first thing I came across on a google search) then yeah, i have a pretty hard time believing that.
QuoteBTW, if you ever find yourself standing by the bedside of a terminally ill or injured loved one or find yourself in a foxhole, I *guarantee* you'll find yourself on your knees fervently praying to the God you now so vehemently shun.
This only happens to people who have been conditioned to think and behave that way.
Quote from: mrtwosheds on March 16, 2009, 06:39:07 PM
This only happens to people who have been conditioned to think and behave that way.
Indeed
Quote from: Red Devil on March 16, 2009, 05:42:59 AM2. Lucifer - "the serpent of old' - convinced Eve to partake of the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', i.e., had sex with Lucifer. (no mention of apples in the Bible...)
This is very interesting. Genesis does state that God told Adam and Eve to "be
fruitful and multiply".
That is
VERY interesting.
Quote from: cheesepuffly on March 16, 2009, 12:58:02 PM
And your not sacred? Not being sarcastic or anything.
Not at all. I actually prefer the belief that there is no afterlife for anyone. It makes life seem so much more important.
The importance of this life is to help get people to the next.
Hopeless...
The main purpose in life is to learn what love is. Everything good flows from that.
If its love from God then yes. Human love aint that bad either.
*rolls eyes making frustrated noises before smashing head on keyboard*
The main purpose in life is to play Battlezone II, isn't it?
NOOO, oh, i mean YES. :-D
That and to make sure the scrap flows. :wink:
Quote from: bigbadbogie on March 17, 2009, 09:14:20 PM
*rolls eyes making frustrated noises before smashing head on keyboard*
Its my duty to do that. Sorry if it offends you.
@Axe, indeed. After God, then is Cheese, then Battlezone 2, and then Pets and then Family.
Sorry for double posting, but im just lettin ya know i updated the issues
(this is what i put in in the topic just copied and pasted )
I have decided to expand the issues, feel free to send me a PM for a request.
4. Gay Marriage: Whats your opinion on this subject? My opinion, they love each other like if not more than most Straight Couples, and atleast in the U.S. one of the main things is the Pursuit of Happiness and it does not really hurt anyone so i believe it should be allowed
5. Putting Humans Down: Cant think of any other way to say it (unrelated to animals). Injecting them with drugs to bring about their death, on the basis that they are in unbearable uncureable pain.
My opinion is also on this, yes. True, its kind of like suicide but let us say in the foreseeable future, there is no way to help that person. And every moment of their life would be in pain. And there is nothing they could do about it. IF that is true then i think you should be able to do that. BUT you must kind of work for it. As in like, get your family approval and
Quote from: cheesepuffly on March 20, 2009, 12:15:32 AM
4. Gay Marriage: Whats your opinion on this subject? My opinion, they love each other like if not more than most Straight Couples, and atleast in the U.S. one of the main things is the Pursuit of Happiness and it does not really hurt anyone so i believe it should be allowed
ABSOLUTELY not. It's UNNATURAL. If two people of the same sex marry, they should NOT be treated like a normal married couple. This is mostly because it is NOT normal. You're NOT born gay. You just have formed a bad habit if you like someone of the same sex...
Quote from: cheesepuffly on March 20, 2009, 12:15:32 AM
5. Putting Humans Down: Cant think of any other way to say it (unrelated to animals). Injecting them with drugs to bring about their death, on the basis that they are in unbearable uncureable pain.
My opinion is also on this, yes. True, its kind of like suicide but let us say in the foreseeable future, there is no way to help that person. And every moment of their life would be in pain. And there is nothing they could do about it. IF that is true then i think you should be able to do that. BUT you must kind of work for it. As in like, get your family approval and
No, no, no. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing people is wrong. Killing a killer is... also wrong.EDIT: misread the issue.
I am of the opinion that Gay Marriage should be legal, BUT NOT AS MARRIAGE! I like the idea of civil unions giving 100% the same LEGAL features of Marriage. Semantics I know, but it is the most fitting to the definition of the word marriage AND the freedoms/rights our societal construct allows. Notice I said societal construct. All societies are a complex web of relinquished freedoms/rights in the interest of an ordered society where the remaining rights/freedoms are not disturbed by those of others. I do not speak for the laws of god, or nature, I only speak as a citizen of my own society.
As for euthanasia, I, just don't know! Now-a-days pain can be rather well managed, and after Terry Schiavo (I am under the distinct feeling that if the brain can't heal itself, which IT CAN, it will just rewire itself to function in a new way with what it still has) I lean against it.
Life in prison is too weak for some, but killing them might be to hard. Personally I put those who commit crimes against children above killers on the 'need to die' list. The prison system is designed for rehabilitation, but, it can't be done for the worst and if it could I STILL DO NOT WANT THEM OUT! With the shortage of organs I would say find a way to kill them and still get the organs, but who wants the organs of a child abuser or murderer in them? We could turn them into a new form of indentured servitude, make some use out of them. I mean, slavery (aside from the American slavery of the past), was something either for prisoners or something you could get elevated out of (or both). Bring that back for those in prison, make USE OF THEM! At least have them pay for their own upkeep (or euthanasia if that still occurs).
I did an essay in community college on euthanasia many years ago and there are many cases where this kind of thing is allowed, but only with family and patient consent. If they are not living on their own, but by a machine and with no brain activity then you can't have patient consent, so in cases in the past the doctor speaks for the patient along with the family to have this considered. The case where a person is just tired of all the pain, or life in general, but they still have full use of all their mental and physical abilities isn't considered. There are many extrememes, like when at war, or during power outages. Should a doctor leave the generator running in a storm to continue giving life to a brain dead patient when there isn't enough power from the generator to save patients who aren't brain dead coming in from the storm? Shouldn't it be his decision to use the power on new patients that can be saved? There are so many different scenarios that you can only do your best to make these decisions as best as you can. I'm glad I'm not a doctor.
The same question in two different forms will result in two different answers.
Normally, do not kill the brain dead to save another, BUT, neglect to help the brain dead when encountering two different individuals at the same time when you can only save one.
Morals are so strange.
Quote from: Feared_1 on March 20, 2009, 04:34:55 AM
No, no, no. Two wrongs don't make a right. Killing people is wrong. Killing a killer is... also wrong.
Splain what you mean there, im not talking about like um really killing people. As in murder.
Basic triage: If it's going to cost more than 5 minutes and critical supplies/tech to save someone, move onto the next one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triage
Here's one: Save the mom or save the baby? Well, can the mom have more babies? If not, save the baby; otherwise, save the mom.
"A man's *got* to know his limitations."
4. Gay Marriage: Really none of my business, never could really figure out why they would want to. The issue of property rights however is another matter.
5. Putting Humans Down:
Death is (at the moment) the unavoidable consequence of life. It is not necessarily a bad thing. If people want to die, who the service truck does anyone think they are trying to stop them. Getting someone else to do you in, however, is dubious and a very inconsiderate request to make of another person, It should certainly not be a service doctors are required to supply.
Never fails to make me laugh that the greatest opponents of this are often those who believe they will go to a better place...So what's the problem?
Folk like me, know we have been dead before, and it really is not a problem or something to worry about at all.
Personally, screw morals, look at this from a logical viewpoint (of the realm of what is better for humanity as a whole, not for an individual person, and you have to think long-term, none of this modern day thinking crap).
DO NOTE, not all of this is my opinion, not anywhere near actually, it just makes the most 'sense' to me.
1 Crime) If a crime is to cause harm to the standards of humanity (from expensive theft to murder) I think the penalty should be the same, and it should be dependent on how likely the person is to be reformed. If they have a high chance of reformation then solitary confinement while they work on a book detailing what they did wrong and why might be good. If there is a medium chance of reformation then a lot of psychological work with possibly a bit of torture might be useful, along with publicly exposing their deeds for all to know. If there is a low chance of reformation then perhaps public torture then death would serve multiple reasons, remove their bad genetics from the human gene pool (many criminal tendencies have been proven to have genetic links with certain chromosomes), as well as let the public know what will happen if they perform an criminal activities.
2 Animal Treatment) I see no reason to treat them different compared to humans. Just as it makes sense to perform experiments on certain unsatisfactory humans, they need to be removed from society anyway, do so to animals. (this is one of those I really do not agree with, but it still makes logical sense when you remove the annoyances known as morality and emotions.)
3 Beginning of the Universe) Go with whatever has the most proof, which currently discounts every religion in existence, and considering how the universe is expanding, the equal energy concentrations, the expansion is speeding up, and a few other forces, a big bang makes the most sense (and the main theory as to the cause of the big bang is best explained by M-Theory as our Universe impacting another for just an instant). It has also been shown that constant darwinism evolution is not the most likely course of most life on this planet, rather it seems more likely that extraordinary events cause a rapid and sudden change in a species based on its environment. It has been shown that when a change takes place than the change is quick and species-wide (in an environmental area).
4 Homosexual marriage) Sure, why not. If they are productive members of society then they should be allowed to. If they are exceptional members of society then perhaps their genes could be frozen to be put to good use by others who want such good genes, but otherwise see no reason against it, when people are comfortable with their surroundings, they are more efficient workers.
5 Putting Humans Down) Absolutely. If a person is in pain or otherwise a drain on society and its resources, and they are unlikely to now or ever again contribute toward society, then if they wish for that to happen then there is absolutely no reason not to go ahead and do so.
Again, as stated, all the above is what makes sense to me, may not be what I agree with, but it makes perfect sense to me and can argue and change those points based on changing information.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
QuotePersonally, screw morals, look at this from a logical viewpoint (of the realm of what is better for humanity as a whole, not for an individual person, and you have to think long-term, none of this modern day thinking crap).
Thinking this way also leads to the inevitable conclusion that what is better for humanity as a whole would be a substantial cull of our particular species. Hopefully morality and emotion will find us a better way.
I'm not feeling optimistic about this though.
Screwing morals, I agree with OM, with them, I refer to my previous post.
Quote from: OvermindDL1 on March 20, 2009, 07:53:41 PM
5 Putting Humans Down) Absolutely. If a person is in pain or otherwise a drain on society and its resources, and they are unlikely to now or ever again contribute toward society, then if they wish for that to happen then there is absolutely no reason not to go ahead and do so.
So with this thinking then hospitals could be like Burger King, and you can have it
your way. "Say doc, I don't want to face the music come monday morning, just go ahead and put me down." And the doc stabs him in the heart with a scalpel and calls for the janitor to clean this mess up. Come on Overmind, I know you can put more thought into this than that. That can't make any sense.
A lot of people live with pain, and contributing to society can mean a whole lot of things. Some people give hope to family with just a yes or no answer from their pinky because they can't move anything else. Their contribution is just being there for their family, which is the highest valued item most people want. Just because he wants now to die, but the family doesn't, should you be able to put him down?
Just like I said before, I'd hate to be a doctor. Especially if he has a "screw my morals" episode. lol
Quote from: Axeminister on March 20, 2009, 10:39:30 PM
So with this thinking then hospitals could be like Burger King, and you can have it your way. "Say doc, I don't want to face the music come monday morning, just go ahead and put me down." And the doc stabs him in the heart with a scalpel and calls for the janitor to clean this mess up. Come on Overmind, I know you can put more thought into this than that. That can't make any sense.
A lot of people live with pain, and contributing to society can mean a whole lot of things. Some people give hope to family with just a yes or no answer from their pinky because they can't move anything else. Their contribution is just being there for their family, which is the highest valued item most people want. Just because he wants now to die, but the family doesn't, should you be able to put him down?
Just like I said before, I'd hate to be a doctor. Especially if he has a "screw my morals" episode. lol
You also did not read through the post. Allow me to bold what you obviously missed:
Quote from: OvermindDL1 on March 20, 2009, 07:53:41 PM
5 Putting Humans Down) Absolutely. If a person is in pain or otherwise a drain on society and its resources, and they are unlikely to now or ever again contribute toward society, then if they wish for that to happen then there is absolutely no reason not to go ahead and do so.
If they can still be productive in society, there is no reason to kill them, even if they want it. Please try to read it all first.
Also, with that hope thing, that does not follow logic, that is a pure emotional answer and as stated that entire post was emotionally unbiased, please try to think through everything before you post.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Dont start flaming please, i mean ya know, just peaceful debates.
But if you cannot do anything, and your in incredible pain i think if you, your family, and with multiple doctors approval, you should be able to.
Quote from: cheesepuffly on March 20, 2009, 11:14:32 PM
Dont start flaming please, i mean ya know, just peaceful debates.
But if you cannot do anything, and your in incredible pain i think if you, your family, and with multiple doctors approval, you should be able to.
No one is even an ember here, it is just a discussion :wink:
Though Ax should have read it better.
Yeah kinda just said that for general reasons.
Yea, I just do not like it when people post a response without even reading what they are responding to. :P
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Quote from: Feared_1 on March 20, 2009, 04:34:55 AM
ABSOLUTELY not. It's UNNATURAL. If two people of the same sex marry, they should NOT be treated like a normal married couple. This is mostly because it is NOT normal. You're NOT born gay. You just have formed a bad habit if you like someone of the same sex...
Whether homosexuality is inherent or acquired is up for debate. I tend to think that it is inherent. A quick statistic: the more older brothers you have, the more likely you are to be gay. I read that in Time Magazine or The Atlantic or something.
You know what else is not normal? Driving. You aren't born with the ability/habit of driving, yet it is clearly not a bad thing. What makes being gay a bad habit while driving a car is not?
Everything you do is a choice. Everything you don't do is a choice.
Quote from: Red Devil on March 27, 2009, 05:55:32 PM
Everything you do is a choice. Everything you don't do is a choice.
True. But what about things you ARE?
Did you choose to be brown-eyed? I don't know if homosexuality is a choice or a condition, but I tend to lean towards thinking that it's a condition. Like brown-eyed or red-haired.
Whether your skin is brown or your eyes are green has no bearing on the choices you make.
A person's skin color does influence the choices he or she makes.
Quote from: sabrebattletank on March 27, 2009, 06:58:43 PM
A person's skin color does influence the choices he or she makes.
Not to be racist but it actually does, because of the treatment you will recieve.
It may factor into your choices - if you let it. But if you have the victim mentality, then, hey, no worries.
It factors into my aversion to strolling about Compton after dark.
I'd like to prevent victimization wherever possible.
Heh. :lol:
Quote from: Red Devil on March 27, 2009, 09:38:11 PM
It may factor into your choices - if you let it.
Right. Factor in = affect. Good, we agree.
If you let it.
The color of your skin may affect how others choose to relate to you. But you choose how to react to how you are treated by others.
So what we've gotten down to is the distinction of homosexual inclinations from homosexual acts.
You ever feel like punching someone in the face? (Well, aside from me :lol: )
I have.
A few times.
Okay, many. :-P
But I never have (yet). Why? Because I choose to let it slide at the time (but, later on, I may say, "Boy I wish I had punched that guy in the face!" :-P )
If we let our feelings (which are governed by our intellect) govern all of our behavior, then what are we?
I'm reminded of this quote (from somewhere):
"Master your feelings before they master you."
Bottle up your feelings, one day you will pop (or fall down and start rolling around).
Lottery human parts drawing :-D :-D
Quote from: Red Devil on March 28, 2009, 03:21:18 AM
If we let our feelings (which are governed by our intellect) govern all of our behavior, then what are we?
But if we all the time push our feelings into the background and ignore them then we lose that which makes us human.
Quote from: Red Devil on March 28, 2009, 03:21:18 AMIf we let our feelings (which are governed by our intellect) govern all of our behavior, then what are we?
That would make us closer to andorians than vulcans?
One thing I hate...
Scholarships..
1 for a woman... ok
1 for a minority... ok
1 for ANYONE... wait what?
So they are saying that I have about 1/100th the chance as a minority or a woman, and a minority woman has approx a 9/10 chance? WTF
Also, reverse racism... Now-a-days to be white is to be scum of the Earth. I could be attacked by someone of some minority out of the blue for no reason, and be blamed for my own attack for racism... Illegal Alien is apparently a racist term, which it isn't, its a legal status. "Black Power" is a call for freedom while "White Power" is the chant of the KKK (not to forget the similar situations of the use of the phrase, but in the reverse, when said against white people, no one cares).
I hate this garbage... Anyone else have issues with this?
Quote from: Nielk1 on March 28, 2009, 06:24:45 PMAnyone else have issues with this?
Yes. As do my friends (which of whom are primarily black and spanish, as is much of my family, which is odd since I am near pure scottish/white). It is just a system to make idiots feel better, it does not help anything, but it hurts a great deal.
(http://www.overminddl1.com/image_scripts/image_sig.php?type=ODL1signitures&image/sig.gif)
Generated by OvermindDL1's Signature Auto-Add Script (http://overminddl1.com) via GreaseMonkey (http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/)
Shhhhhhaaammmme on you for getting all, all....uppity. Don't you know you're an oppressor and need to pay it back to all the oppressed peoples? Besides, they deserve it and so are entitled to it, so you should not expect to be treated fairly.
Some people.... :roll:
Quote from: Nielk1 on March 28, 2009, 06:24:45 PM
I hate this garbage... Anyone else have issues with this?
Yes. I do.
So much for equality.
QuoteAlso, reverse racism... Now-a-days to be white is to be scum of the Earth
That is not 'reverse racism', it is just racism.
I say reverse because they accuse you of it, when you dont. Their acusation is the act I am naming.
I remember when I was asked "Hilary or Obama" and I said "Neither" I was called both a sexist AND a racist.
EDIT: BBB, that sig as a link... I HATE THAT. Its darn big and I end up clicking it with middle mouse button while I scroll...
Ya sexist racist... Just proves they were voting by either race or gender. We're surrounded by turkeys, aren't we?
Yes, please reduce the size of that thing, please.
Quote from: cheesepuffly on March 14, 2009, 06:04:42 PM
This is one of the few places that i post where people actually can take things seriously, so id like your opinion on a few things. Just lemme know which one your responding to, you dont have to do all of them.
K ready?
1. Crime: In my opinion, we should up the punishment for crime, then there would be less of it. Like say get the death penalty a bit easier. If your intent was to kill, then you get it no matter what degree. (not saying that specifically though). Or double the time in jail for various offenses.
2. Animal Treatment: This kind of goes along with top one, but in my opinion, even if you dont do it with other crimes, you should atleast up the punishment for Domestic Animal Cruelty. The thing is, although animals are not nearly as important as humans, they still feel the pain a human does. And for the most part, i think the animal has it worse than a human when someone is doing something to it. The human understands whats going on, the animal does not.
3. Beginning of the Universe: I cant remember who it was who said in the evolution thread that evolution was a proven fact (im not trying to pick you out or say your wrong or anything) and i said you shouldnt call it a fact. Id like to bring that up again.
This goes for BOTH ways the universe came into be and the people who believe it, evolutionist or creationist. No one should call these facts. Why? Because not everyone agrees with it. Sure saying some ultimate being who can do anything created the universe in 6 days including us and there is a single book that answers all the worlds problems is a bit far fetched, but so is saying our complex life forms came from a single cell by chance, and before that the whole universe was smaller than a needle head and exploded in less than a second into what we know today. All im saying is, people should not call either versions a fact. Gravity is a fact. We revolve around the sun, thats a fact. Cheese is awesome, thats a fact. Its something for the most part everyone can agree too. Evolutionists can find proof of their version and Creationists can find proof of their version. Dont call either side a fact. THIS IS NOT A PLACE TO DEBATE it.
I have decided to expand the issues, feel free to send me a PM for a request.
4. Gay Marriage: Whats your opinion on this subject? My opinion, they love each other like if not more than most Straight Couples, and atleast in the U.S. one of the main things is the Pursuit of Happiness and it does not really hurt anyone so i believe it should be allowed
5. Putting Humans Down: Cant think of any other way to say it (unrelated to animals). Injecting them with drugs to bring about their death, on the basis that they are in unbearable uncureable pain.
My opinion is also on this, yes. True, its kind of like suicide but let us say in the foreseeable future, there is no way to help that person. And every moment of their life would be in pain. And there is nothing they could do about it. IF that is true then i think you should be able to do that. BUT you must kind of work for it. As in like, get your family approval and a good amount of people whom inspect your case's approval. Those people being doctors of course.
Hmmm...
1) Careful about increasing the punishment for crime. The punishment should be increased, I think, but not too much. I'm too tired to go into more detail.
2) Animal treatment... yes, I think we should be treating animals better. And yes, they are far less important than humans, though we should still be nice to them.
3) Evolution is indeed
not a fact. It isn't even close. Genetics shows this. Those that claim genetics doesn't make sense until you think of it from an evolutionary perspective, how wrong you are. www.creation.com shows repeatedly again and again the way evolution fail to live up to standards.
4) Gay marriage. Aside from the fact that it is not in line with what the Bible says, remember that people aren't actually born gay. It is a state of mind that can result from any number of things. But why is homosexuality so bad? Consider the following:
Homosexuals commit between 33% and 50% of all recorded instances of child molestation.
Homosexual teachers have been involved in 80% of recorded teacher-pupil sexual interactions.
Homosexuals have accounted for about half of all molestations among those who work with children.
You are 15 times more likely to be murdered by a homosexual than a heterosexual during a sexual murder spree.
Most victims of sex murders die at the hands of a homosexual.
Homosexuality doesn't hurt anyone hmm? (That sounds meaner than I intended, sorry.) Now, I'm not anti-homosexual. I'm anti-homosexual
ity. I'm against what they do, not what they are.
5) That's called euthanasia, or something like that. It
is like suicide. People have indeed made miraculous recoveries in the past, and so I don't think it would be fair to put someone down. Our lives aren't our own to take. And others' lives aren't ours to take either.
1: A. I know that for drug-dealing related crimes, that strategy hasn't worked. Period.
The ancient Greeks performed vivisection on condemned criminals. How else do you think they were able to carve all those life-like statues?