Does a candidate's religion matter more than the issues?

[Cantousent]

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.

[Sand]

I have no interest in "attacking" your philosophy, Cant. Discussing would be nice, but not attack.

 

It is how I view it Alan, but hey, if you want to go back to 16th century medicine where they use leeches be my guess. After all, if you eliminate all medicines that went through human trials prior being released to the public that is where you would be at.

Edited February 20, 2007 by Sand

[Walsingham]

It's my experience that those with the greatest faith in science could use more experience of creating it. I'm passionate about the scienntific paradigm, but it doesn't remove the need for morality.

[Sand]

I agree, and I never said otherwise.

[Walsingham]

I agree, and I never said otherwise.

 

Then I apologise for the misunderstanding.

[Cantousent]

It is how I view it Alan, but hey, if you want to go back to 16th century medicine where they use leeches be my guess. After all, if you eliminate all medicines that went through human trials prior being released to the public that is where you would be at.

 

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

[alanschu]

It is how I view it Alan, but hey, if you want to go back to 16th century medicine where they use leeches be my guess. After all, if you eliminate all medicines that went through human trials prior being released to the public that is where you would be at.

 

Strawman. We're not talking about medicines that went through human trials, nor have I said that testing medicines on human subjects should not be done.

 

 

Unfortunately, it became immediately clear that the candidate

Edited February 20, 2007 by alanschu

[metadigital]

If you are going to take it tot he extreme then there is no point in discussing it. One thing I hate most is extremist views and using extremism as a means to argue. You don't like my stance, that is fine, but you are pushing it to an extremist viewpoint of what I said which is just ridiculous and if that is how you view it then there is no reason to continue at all.

How would you propose to create legislation, if you don't allow for people to take an extreme interpretation of it?

[alanschu]

Exactly. It needs to be all-encompassing in order to prevent abuses.

[Cantousent]

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.

[Sand]

I

[Cantousent]

I

[alanschu]

As for Christians being against scientific progress, I'm sure that a good chunk of the billions of dollars invested in research comes from the 80% or so Americans that identify themselves as Christians.

[Sand]

That is why I clarified way up there on the threads that I am refering to Sunday Fundies. You know, the people who adamantly believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old, that global warming is the predecessor of the second coming of Jesus therefore a good thing, and that Creationism and literal interpretation of the Bible is the only truth there is.

[Atreides]

Lol Sunday Fundies.

[Sand]

I thought it was relatively funny. I think some people here are taking things a tad too seriously.

[Cantousent]

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]

Speaking of alcohol there is one law here in Iowa that just doesn't make any sense to me. Between the time of 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. Monday through Saturday I can't sell alcohol. On Sunday it is 2 a.m. to 8 a.m.. Am I alone in this in thinking that this is a pretty lame law to have?

[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.

[Guard Dog]

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?

Heh, and what would I do AFTER I voted in every election.

[Sand]

Get Aram's and Eddo's weapons and go on a rampage at the local tackle and bait shop?

[Guard Dog]

Get Aram's and Eddo's weapons and go on a rampage at the local tackle and bait shop?

Heh, nah, I'd rather get good and drunk and tell everyone how I'd have done a better job had I been in office!

[metadigital]

Ah, a traditionalist, then.

[Walsingham]

I vote we all get drunk.

[Dark_Raven]

I'm all for that.