Cantousent

I don't agree with the law, but it's probably aimed at alcohol related deaths. That's an assumption on my part, however.

If I'm a fundie on Sunday, can I drink all day Saturday? I digress. The candidate must not try to abolish alcohol consumption. Otherwise, what would I do before I vote every election?

Sand accusing me of taking his views to the extreme is ridiculous in any case. He's had all sorts of contradictory an extreme views over the years. I actually expected him to say that it was good policy to conduct experiments on prisoners. If I weren't lazy, I'd look up a thread where he actually said something quite similar about convicted murders or some such. This thread does not exist in a vacuum. If you regularly make extremist statements, folks might take your arguments to the extreme. *shrug* I dunno.

Ah, now who's taking an argument to the extreme? ...And if that weren't an attack, I don't know what is. Play nice! On the other hand, this does establish that you see science as a way to benefit humanity. I assumed that's what you meant, but you cited science as a stand alone endeavor. I'm just trying to ascertain whether or not science is the goal, or merely a tool to achieve a goal. That's an important distinction. Science has a place in arguing for policy, but it's never the goal of any policy. Ever. Since that's the case, I like to find out what forms the actual basis of the policy. For example, scientific progress can mean medicine, but is not reserved for medicine, nor does it need to mean medicine in the first place. For example, scientific progress can mean better weapons. It can also mean exploration of space. It can mean all sorts of things. Furthermore, you cited scientific progress a little close to abortion, and I was trying to figure out whether you favored abortion under your platform of scientific progress (stem cell research) or person freedom (a woman's right to choose). I don't mind being charitible with your arguments, Sand. I really don't. ...But you've made so many extreme statements, even in this thread, that I honestly don't know how to take your scientific progress statement. I figured you might well say that we should have compulsory experiments on convicted felons. ...But the fact is that you stated that a Christian candidate would never be fit in your eyes. Then, when push came to shove, you cited homosexuals and families. When that position became untenable, you cited abortion. You started a thread entitled

At any rate, I'm not taking your comment to extremes, it was an extreme comment. However, I can see that you included the word generally. I'll give you a point for that. Okay? "I am generally for Scientific progress, equal and same rights for everyone, and personal freedom to the extent that it doesn't impede the personal freedoms of others. In that order of importance. [emphasis added]" The thing is, you have to define what you mean by scientific progress. No one wants science for its own sake. Do you? My understanding is that you want scientific progress for human health and comfort? That could be wrong, so correct me if so. At any rate, you want personal freedom to pursue your own brand of happiness. Again, I'm open to correction. With that understanding, we have to discuss the whole idea of science and abortion. There is no scientific basis for permitting or denying abortions. So, the only argument for permitting abortions is based on freedom. Okay, I'll accept that. Now, since you've decided to juke and jibe away from the original issue and take on abortion, let's discuss the freedom of abortion in relation to other freedoms we do or do not have. Fair enough? If you want to pin me down on an argument, why don't you forget trying to dance around your personal philosophy and ask me about mine. It's a lot easier to attack someone else's philosophy than it is to defend your own, no matter who you are.

The first thing to do is to understand that science is never the basis for public policy. Science can provide arguments for your policy, but it is never the basis of it. So, if you're for scientific progress, you're going to have to explain yourself a bit further. You say that scientific progress is the primary driver for your decisions. Okay. So, should we perform experiments on convicted fellons? What if progress is best served by permitting abortions, then that should be the basis of your policy. If progress is best served by denying abortions, then that should be the basis for you policy. If you progress is best served by declaring that some women will be impregnated against their will and have resulting feti aborted at various stages of pregnancy, then that should be the basis of your policy. Science, however, is not the basis in any case. What is the issue that trumps all in your world, Sand?

Why does science favor abortion? I mean, other than it's just another handful of straws to salvage your argument, what exactly does abortion have to do with it? ...And assuming your a single issue voter with that one issue being abortion, how does abortion favor scientific progress? ...And if you favor personal freedom then is it not the manifestation of that freedom using your own judgement in deciding to vote for a particular candidate. Or does that "impede" your own personal freedom. Would you then impede my freedom to vote as a Christian? How free of you. Nevertheless, back to science. Let's talk about science. What does science say about policy?

Once again, unless things changed dramatically between 87, when I did basic, and 93, when Sand did basic, we did learn about the Geneva Conventions. On the other hand, you learn a lot of stuff in basic, and most of it centered on making sure you behaved properly. However, it's difficult to live long enough to enlist in the military without exposure to the Geneva Conventions, even if as nothing more than an idea. For some people, particularly people in the field, the term should encompass more than an idea. Nevertheless, it's an idea to which we're acquainted very early in life. Ain't that a shame? Moreover, is that the grounds for refusal? I think the twists and turns of this thread have led us to a confusing place. As is customary, we have the usual hyperbolic and strident voices, the suspects we've come to know and love, railing about the injustice of the military and the government and all thing in the world not of their design or choosing. *shrug* I don't need the Geneva conventions to tell me that raping an innocent woman is wrong, whether she's a citizen of Iraq or is born and bred American. We don't need the convention to tell us that torturing other humans is not only a bad idea, but morally wrong. If I were ordered to do so, I would refuse. If I were compelled by force, I would seek escape. If I, or heaven forbid my family, were under threat of violence, I would comply as minimally as possible. Yes, there are reasons I might refuse orders. I'm an American, after all, and I didn't cease to be free when I volunteered to serve my country. However, the threshold for refusal must be high. It must transcend mere politics or petty personal concerns. It must be of such a dramatic nature that I am compelled to break ranks and put my country's interest, as well as my safety and the safety of my fellows, at risk. Sure, you can refuse an order, but not because you have such an intemperate nature that you cannot abide fulfilling the very obligations for which you volunteered. If you have no stomach for following orders, then don't volunteer for them in the first place. Your trivial grievances are not legitimate grounds for abrogating your commitments. EDIT: Included the word NOT.

I might play the original again just to whet my appetite. I'm going to follow this title closely.

The wife and I saw Princess Bride and The Legend of Bagger Vance yesterday. Today, we shall see something as yet not determined.

The words can be ordered as you so desire, although the verb generally ends a sentence in Latin. However, I'm trying to wrack my brains to remember if Latin requires the verb before the dative of possession. Literally, "there is for me a catapult." Sounds clunky in English, but the Greeks and Romans used it all the time. I would agree with Fio, about the present subjunctive.

I might have to look into the departed myself.

I've been playing WoW. Can anyone tell me how to view the damnable screenshots? I was going to post one, but I can't view them. They're... just a sec... TGA files.

Other than mandatory alcohol consumption at the polls, I can't think of a better way to form public policy.

I agree. You know that scene wasn't even really vital to the film, although it was funny. "You're ******!" I love the part where Steve Martin looks over at John Candy and sees the devil. hahaha Okay, tonight we watch Lethal Weapon.

I'm with wistrik in his every point.

There's no curse and no fate. It can be done and I believe Sawyer will do it. No distancing himself from this particular project. For good or ill, it will be his. It may or may not be exactly what he wanted, but the Black Hound buck will start and stop with Sawyer. :Eldar's wolfish grin icon:

Anatomy of a murder and Bounty with my wife. Planes Trains and Automobiles again on my own, Leathal weapon tomorrow with the wife.

Great quote, Walsh.

"...I doubt there is one Christian candidate that would want to give Homosexuals the same and equal rights as Heterosexuals in all things relating to marriage and family."

:Cant's shaking his head with an incredulous smile icon: "The problem with that, Volourn, I doubt a Christian would have the same views on the issues that I would consider presidential material. Then again, there might be one but I doubt it. I doubt there is one Christian candidate that would want to give Homosexuals the same and equal rights as Heterosexuals in all things relating to marriage and family." ...And so you're using relilgion as the basis for your decision. The underlying (and wrong, by the way) argument is that people who adhere to the tenets of one particular religion will, by the nature of that association, have convictions contrary to your own. I agree. It is your right to base your decision on such a factor. That was my point all along. However, while we're talking of "equal rights" and trying secure such for "every single American citizen," let's address the underlying issue. First of all, are we talking all Christians, or just some. Your comment is indiscrete. It lumps all Christians together. You're good at that, I know. Next, you, and others, have placed the ills you perceive in this country at the feet of the Christian majority. Now, assuming we really do have that Christian majority, haven't those "great strides [for] equal rights for gays and lesbians" been borne forth by the legs of quite a few Christians? You can't have it both ways. Frankly, the whole thread is absurd. It's just another trawl, which is fair enough I guess. ...But let's just call the thread for what it is, another excuse to attack Christianity and Christians indiscriminately.

This is a more sensible question because, after all, we have ultimate control over our religion. No matter the circumstances of our birth, we can decide to leave or join a religion. However, candidates, no matter their personal convictions cannot change their gender or race. ...And that issue is not itself cut and dried. For instance, Obama might benefit from his race, being embraced by both white and black Americans. He's a liberal with a message with which many conservatives can agree. So, on one hand, he's a bad candidate for racist trogs. On the other, he represents something I believe many Americans are willing to embrace, a non-white President. So, to bring the whole thing around to the beginning, should candidates benefit from their gender or his race? Clearly they have, but should they?

"Bush made his career on the Christian right, whom he secretly thinks are crackpots." Obviously not a well kept secret.

This seems like a dead end argument. You'd be better off attacking Bush on the basis of his single minded religious outlook rather than saying that he's a religious fraud. By most accounts, he is not. As far as the current hysteria, once again rearing its ugly head, I doubt if the question Sand advances in his initial post hits the mark in the first place. It's clear that folks will take in a variety of factors in choosing a leader. They will undoubtedly find someone alike to them in many ways, only one of which is religion. We have democract and republican Christians in office right now, which I doubt is the outcome of an all powerful Conservative Christian movement. For example, I'm a Christian. Do I go out of my way to make sure the candidate for whom I vote is Christian? No. ...But if people discuss their world view in a politcal forum, I'm going to side with the person whose views are most compatible with my own. Towards that end, whether I actually know the person is a Christian or not, I'm going to side with the candidate with Christian values because those values are mine as well. Of course, admitting your Christian status isn't always the safest course of action on this board. After all, if I say that I would like a candidate who best represents my values, many of which are Christian, I'll soon find that the very idea of Christian values are under attack. ..But not all those values are reserved for Christianity. So, I'd favor the candidate who shares my Christian values, whether he calls them universal values, Jewish values, or even just plain common sense. Which brings me to the question. What question should we ask? I mean, unless you all want to throw red meat to each other, there's probably a real issue under all this that transcends the inane charge that those mean ol' Christians are voting for other Christians.