Is anyone out there STILL a Republican?

[michaeledward]

I don't normally like to interleve my answers in a post ... but there are so many rhetorical questions here.

The idea that all of mankind are animals is true...to a point.
Are animals held to the same standards as humans? : Held to the same standard by whom?

Are humans free to ignore laws and run amok, the way animals do? : If one understood the history of our species, you would see that for three million years, we did just that.

Do humans urinate on their food to keep others from eating it? :I don't know.

Do humans eat their young? : It has been known to happen. EDIT - sorry, I thought you said kill their young - END EDIT They also have kill the old. And currently we make great sport out of killing people we don't know.

Kill their mates? : It has happened.

Are animals arrested and tried when they do these things, of course not. You can compare the two until you are blue in the face, and then, you will still be wrong. There is a difference. - Some species of animals certainly do practice discipline in their communities. Members of some animal communities are run out of the group if they misbehave.

Animals are not expected to have civilized behavior. And yet, elephants mourn their dead, and fish swim in schools, caribou walk in single file. None of these can be described as uncivilized behavior.


Someone pointed out that animals engage in homosexual acts, I pointed out that animals engage in a plethora of actions that are not tolerated by civilization. The idea that because animals do something it is good and right to do is ignorant. - I don't think the argument was presented that any behavior was good or right. I think the argument was that it was in the animal nature - said another way, it is natural for some animals to behave that way.


Some animals, as was stated before, eat their young, pee on their dinner, and otherwise act like the animals they are, do you really want anarchy? - Are you really saying that natural behavior among the animal population of the world is anarchy? One wonders how the world has survived as long as it has?

Should there be total hedonism? - Why not, from the Greek hedone - meaning pleasure. Maybe you wish the world to be unpleasureable. I think that perhaps a bit more pleasure, and joy in our world would suit us all.

Or is the rule of law important? - the 'rule of law' is a man made construct. And many social groups, of many species have got along just fine without a 'rule of law'. The absence of 'rule of law' does not mean that society norms do not exist, nor that infractions against those norms go unpunished.

Is civilization overly limiting? - Often, it is. Often, for patriachal reasons that have no basis in evidence or reason. For instance, alcohol is an intoxicant that is legal for adults to purchase in use in our society, whereas marijuana is an intoxicant that is not legal for adults to purchase and use. There is no reasonable argument for the limitation of one substance and the lack of limitation for the other.



I believe human beings can live ethical lives without religion, and while associated with any political party. I don't need any other person to tell me what is right or what is wrong. I have the capacity and experience to reason it out for myself.

And, I don't believe that human beings are in any way superior to any of the other animals that in habit our planet. Our ability for language, and to make clever tools has separated us from many of the other animals on the planet.

It is our arrogance and overpopulation that is driving many of those animals to extinction. In my ethical understanding, that is something for which we should all be ashamed, because it is wrong.

 

[Ray]

Wether the poster - Big Don - made his statement as a rebuttal to another claim or not, his statement says what it says. In that statement, he seems to be implying that homo sapiens are not animals. That argument is not a strong argument.

And, I do not see Doc Jude's statement as an appeal to authority. I'm wondering what authority you think he is calling upon?

Really, this last couple of pages of discussion should be taking place under one of the religious threads, because the arguments are being made, as I think you pointed out earlier, Ray, are religious in nature. Perhaps some of the new posters believe that one of the political parties in our country has more relevance to religion than the other.

Michael, "if animals do it, then it's okay for us" sounds like justification based on an appeal to nature; nature, evolution or whatever it is, sounds like "an appeal to authority" to me.

You are mistaken that my comments have anything at all to do with my religious beliefs. And it should be evident from the agruement. You are using a "straw man."

 

[michaeledward]

Ray, there is no logical fallacy called 'appeal to nature'. And there is no higher authority referenced in the post.

The fallacy of 'appeal to authority' is when one makes the ascertion that is deemed true because of the position of authority of the person asserting it. (e.g. The pope says homosexuality is against Gods plan). There is also a fallacy of 'argumentum ad populum', which is a position that is claimed to be true because many people believe it is true. (e.g. Many people believe homosexuality is wrong).

Now, one may want to argue that comparing man to all the other animals on our planet is a poor analogy. And in fact, I think the argument that homosexuality in the animal kingdom does not address the ethical questions that face our society. It is, however, a reasonable counter to the claim that homosexuality is un-natural. Was that point raised (rustyself - post 650 // Big Don - post 680)? If so, instances of homosexual behavior in nature provides us proof that such claims are erroneous.

I believe I have pointed out several times in this thread, Ray, that your arguments are not usually clouded by these fallacies (see #638). However, if the straw man I build is relevant to other posters, is it a straw man at all? (If the underlying argument being raised in the past few pages is that a posters' religious beliefs are driving their prejudice,

 

[michaeledward]

all i have to say is, thank God your parents werent homo, or you wouldnt be here, no?

I hate to drag this post up from the past ... however, in searching for the previous post, I stumbled across this sentence. It hit a nerve with me.

My wife's mother is gay. My wife's father is gay. My wife is a wonderful, caring, and patient person.

I dearly love my mother-in-law, and her partner for their kindness, gentleness, and charity.

Due to personal estrangments, I don't know my father-in-law.

Here, again, a statement is made that demonstrably, factually incorrect. My wifes' parents were "homo" (languaged that appears to have been used as a slur), and she is here, and I am the better for it.

 

[Big Don]

It is saddening that liberals want to reduce mankind to being no better than other animals.

 

[Makalakumu]

It is saddening that liberals want to reduce mankind to being no better than other animals.

The fact that homo sapians are animals is not a "liberal" idea. It is a fact. Everything that you do builds off of something that is representative in the animal kingdom. Our ontogony recapitulates our phylogeny in every sense that is important.

We are animals and "god" is just an expression of our psychology. So, let people love whom they choose without disparaging that commitment.

If you'd like to discuss the human animal, meet me here.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Wether the poster - Big Don - made his statement as a rebuttal to another claim or not, his statement says what it says. In that statement, he seems to be implying that homo sapiens are not animals. That argument is not a strong argument.

And, I do not see Doc Jude's statement as an appeal to authority. I'm wondering what authority you think he is calling upon?

Homo Sapien is very much an animal.

 

[Doc_Jude]

The idea that all of mankind are animals is true...to a point. Are animals held to the same standards as humans? Are humans free to ignore laws and run amok, the way animals do?

Animals obey the laws of their nature. They don't recognize human laws. Human laws are creations of society and serve to perpetuate that human construction.
If you look at the behavior of monkeys or higher primates, they do have intricate social structures, along with the aberrant behavior that we observe in our societies.
Not so different, only in complexity.

Do humans urinate on their food to keep others from eating it?

Never heard of it. Who knows?

Do humans eat their young?

No, but they've been known to kill their young, and the young of other people/tribes/societies. Perhaps cannibals have eaten the young of other tribes...

Kill their mates?

YES. We see it every other day in the news!

Are animals arrested and tried when they do these things, of course not.

No, but the higher you go in the animal kingdom, you see aberrant behavior often punished with exile or death.

You can compare the two until you are blue in the face, and then, you will still be wrong. There is a difference. Animals are not expected to have civilized behavior. Someone pointed out that animals engage in homosexual acts, I pointed out that animals engage in a plethora of actions that are not tolerated by civilization.

They haven't always been so frowned upon as they are now. I'm not blue yet...

The idea that because animals do something it is good and right to do is ignorant. Some animals, as was stated before, eat their young, pee on their dinner,

(urine is sterile and can be ingested in small amounts with no ill effects)

... and otherwise act like the animals they are, do you really want anarchy? Should there be total hedonism? Or is the rule of law important? Is civilization overly limiting?

You should study the animal kingdom a little closer, especially the behavior of monkeys, primates, and higher orders of herbivores & carnivores with complex social interactions (herds, packs, pods, prides, etc)
You'll see some pretty civilized behavior.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Male animals also initiate sex with female animals with no consent, does that mean rape is acceptable?

No, female animals often beat hell out of some presumptuous males.

I think that you are confusing some ideal of human behavior with the way that the human animal really behaves. We cheat, lie, steal, kill, rape, pillage, & the list goes on. We initiate wars and spy on our neighbors, we tamper with their political systems...

Compare humanity & it's various peoples to the behaviors of ant colonies. You'll be surprised at the correlations.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Michael, "if animals do it, then it's okay for us" sounds like justification based on an appeal to nature; nature, evolution or whatever it is, sounds like "an appeal to authority" to me.

You are mistaken that my comments have anything at all to do with my religious beliefs. And it should be evident from the agruement. You are using a "straw man."

I never said that. Go back & read my post & quit putting words in my mouth & reacting as if your belief system is being challenged.

You should present something that doesn't resemble pure opinion, or adamant adherence to some illogical belief system, if you would presume to point out the argumentative fallacies in the posts of others. Man, you don't want me to cut up your posts, believe me.

 

[michaeledward]

It is saddening that liberals want to reduce mankind to being no better than other animals.

As upnorthkyosa pointed out, my political orientation is hardly relevant to the point I make: homo sapiens belong to the animal kingdom.


However, perhaps you would like to take a few moments and explain to me the specific reasons, and the specific attributes that you draw upon to inform your belief that mankind is better than the animal kingdom? Help me to understand why and how you choose to elevate mankind above the other animals. Lastly, help me to understand why defining mankind as equivilant to the other animals which inhabit our world is 'sad' to you?


There are three questions here, Big Don. Can you put away your sword, enough to address these thoughts with bit of care? Don't tell me, please, why my beliefs are wrong. Help me to understand your beliefs.

 

[Ray]

I never said that. Go back & read my post & quit putting words in my mouth & reacting as if your belief system is being challenged.

I went back and read it. I quoted your post in my initial response. You said
"I don't remember quantifying ANY sexual orientation as "good and natural". My point is that homosexual activity exists in the natural world, in species across the board. If the "animal species" that is Homo sapien produces the occasional homosexual, as do other species, who are we to judge such a person as good & natural, or bad and unnatural?"

I'm just using your reasoning: If something exists in the natural world, then it must be something which we mustn't judge. If I extend that reasoning to other activities, then it logically falls apart.

I didn't put words in your mouth. It should be obvious and evident that you are not challenging my beliefs.

You should present something that doesn't resemble pure opinion, or adamant adherence to some illogical belief system, if you would presume to point out the argumentative fallacies in the posts of others. Man, you don't want me to cut up your posts, believe me.

Sorry, you're right. I presented your words and they do resemble pure opion. I have no "adamant adherence to some illogical belief system" (it is wholly conjecture on your part, having no first hand knowledge of me).

 

[Doc_Jude]

I went back and read it. I quoted your post in my initial response. You said
"I don't remember quantifying ANY sexual orientation as "good and natural". My point is that homosexual activity exists in the natural world, in species across the board. If the "animal species" that is Homo sapien produces the occasional homosexual, as do other species, who are we to judge such a person as good & natural, or bad and unnatural?"

I'm just using your reasoning: If something exists in the natural world, then it must be something which we mustn't judge. If I extend that reasoning to other activities, then it logically falls apart.

How you can liken cannibalistic infanticide to homosexuality is beyond me. They are very separate. It comes down to "An it harm none, do as you will."
Sex between consenting adults, regardless of gender, is not on the same lines as murder or peeing on your food.

I didn't put words in your mouth. It should be obvious and evident that you are not challenging my beliefs.

Sorry, you're right. I presented your words and they do resemble pure opion. I have no "adamant adherence to some illogical belief system" (it is wholly conjecture on your part, having no first hand knowledge of me).

Well, I know that you're mormon.

Here's a site on the views of Mormons on homosexuality. Here's a popular one:
"Homosexuality Is Sin: Next to the crime of murder comes the sin of sexual impurity."
Here's another:
"Satan tells his victims that it is a natural way of life; that it is normal; that perverts are a different kind of people born 'that way' and that they cannot change. This is a base lie...it were better that such a man were never born."
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_lds4.htm

Since you seem to align the animal behavior of the eating of their young, for whatever reason, with homosexuality, you would seem to be a proponent of the first quote. Am I correct in this observation? Would your personal beliefs extend in to the second quote?

Many scientists and biologist, published and professional, agree with me that homosexuality is a behavior based on biology & not psychology. As has been said before, it may very well be our species reaction to overpopulation, but you think that it's something else. However, in the rest of the animal world, homosexuality isn't hated or reviled, regardless of the fact that such behavior doesn't produce children
(such as is common among bonabos!)
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/76
http://www.dlynnwaldron.com/bonobos.html
“Bonobos... live in female managed societies where violence is not tolerated, where rape and infanticide do not exist, where other species are not killed, and where a wide variety of enjoyable sexual activities are used to enhance friendships and to resolve conflicts.”

What do you think that the sources of homosexuality are, if not organic? & please try to site credible sources.

 

[Ray]

How you can liken cannibalistic infanticide to homosexuality is beyond me. They are very separate. It comes down to "An it harm none, do as you will."
Sex between consenting adults, regardless of gender, is not on the same lines as murder or peeing on your food.

Then we are agreed in that the behaviors that are found in animals are not necessarily the behaviors that well-mannered, peaceful and loving people should mirror?

Well, I know that you're mormon.

Here's a site on the views of Mormons on homosexuality. Here's a popular one:

A couple years ago I was speaking to a manager who upon hearing that I was Mormon proceeded to tell me all the things I believed in. When I told him he was mistaken, he said "oh, no I'm not. It is true for this is what my Lutheran pastor told me."

I perfer to get my information first hand. Please obtain , read and the 4 brochures mentioned. If you will do that, I will do the same and we can talk about them.

I spent a lot of time in my history reading material that was unfriendly (or "anti") towards what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believes. I even memorized some if it and used it on Mormons when I lived in Salt Lake county.

Yes, you know that I am a Mormon...you probably know that Paul was a Christian apostle. Paul wasn't always a Christian, nor friendly towards their beliefs. The same goes for me.

"Homosexuality Is Sin:..."

Lets tackle "sin" first: It's my assumption that you and I (and most people) believe that there is "right and wrong" regardless of whether they are religious people or not.

Would you agree that there may be atheists who might disagree with each other on constitutes "right and wrong"? And perhaps think of a different subject than homosexuality. If we look at historical debates on ethical issues, we may be biased to accept the outlook that prevailed and is commonly accepted and practiced today; perhaps you can look for an issue that is a "non issue" to you, but is very important to some other people. Examine the issue and tell me if you find a "right and wrong" position.

I put forth that if you an atheist then you may find a "right or wrong" on the issue but you won't find "sin."

Likewise, I have examined homsexuality and decided that it is not "right" for me. I have two nice neighbers who are believed to be in a "same gender" relationship; it is legal and does not harm me...we are friendly towards each other and they are nice people. If it is a "sin" then it is between them and their God, and has nothing to do with me. I have my hands full with what I myself continue to do and consider "wrong" for me.

Since you seem to align the animal behavior of the eating of their young, for whatever reason, with homosexuality, you would seem to be a proponent of the first quote. Am I correct in this observation? Would your personal beliefs extend in to the second quote?

I do not align the animal behavior of eating their young with homosexuality. I only point out that we cannot use animal behavior to derive appropriate human behavior (and although i believe humans to be animals, for the purpose of that sentence I exclude the group of human animals from the other groups of animals).

Many scientists and biologist, published and professional, agree with me that homosexuality is a behavior based on biology & not psychology.

You are to be congratulated on winning over the best scientific minds of the 21st century to your way thinking.

Althought that was a slight attempt at funniness on my part, I know what you're saying. I do not know where many human behaviors originate, whether biological, psychological, toxicological or what ever...I just know that some behaviors don't work for me.

I have read that alcoholism may be biological in origin. My father was an alcoholic and that behavior didn't work well for him, my mother nor my siblings. But there are plenty of people who drink without a problem.

By the way, one of my favorite people. One that I worked with in the past and have since recruited to work for me is a homosexual man. I think the world of him and his abilities. He has, in the past, invited me to some of parties at his house (and he described what goes on) and I declined; but I'm happy to have lunch, dinner or most normal social functions with him.

As has been said before, it may very well be our species reaction to overpopulation, but you think that it's something else.

As I said, I don't know what the origin of it is. It may be a reaction to overpopulation; perhaps Roman world was overpopulated?

However, in the rest of the animal world, homosexuality isn't hated or reviled, regardless of the fact that such behavior doesn't produce children

Likewise, I don't hate or revile homosexuals.

I do note that birds eat pebbles which help them digest food. I abstain from pebblery but will defend your legal right to do it if you so choose.

“Bonobos... live in female managed societies where violence is not tolerated, where rape and infanticide do not exist, where other species are not killed, and where a wide variety of enjoyable sexual activities are used to enhance friendships and to resolve conflicts.”

Good for them. It may be that they are happy, peaceful creatures. It may be that female managed societies are peacful in humans, too. That would be okay by me. I'm sure there's a point to the Bonobo quote? I'd like to see a peacful society where people do no harm to one another. What can you and I do to bring it about (besides arguing on the internet)?

What do you think that the sources of homosexuality are, if not organic? & please try to site credible sources.

Don't know, don't care...don't need to know, don't care to know. There are, however, people who are homosexual and they are first and foremost people.

 

[Mr. E]

Ray wrote,

..... I don't know that our youth are receiving an equal opportunity for the same quality of education.

Which got this response.

This sentence, in my opinion, is the beginning of understanding the differences between the two parties, in our two party system.

The Democratic Party works hard to take each school, and bring it as close to the same starting line as possible.

The Republican Party works hard to take each citizen, and give them an opportunity for a seat at the school of their choosing.


In my opinion, the Democratic Party position benefits even those who do not make a choice ~ whereas the Republican Party position benefits only those who make a choice.

This may be a monochromatic way to describe the differences in the parties, but I believe it to be more accurate than not.

I thought what you wrote over for a few days and I have to agree with you. But it seems to be the reasons that if I had a choice, I would go with the republican candidate, all else being equal.

It has been my observation that parents that do not take part in their kids education and upringing- or do the very minimum they can- produce terrible kids. You can have the best schools and teachers, throw money at them and the kids still turn out to be worthless.

So you are saying that parents who want the freedom to do the best for their kids should vote Republican. And those who don't want to be bothered with their kids even enough to choose what school they will go to and just want the state to take care of everything should vote Democratic.

Aside from those folks that just want the state to do things for them, there also seems to be one other group that would vote Democratic, those that want to be in control of taking care of other people. I have run into a few of those in my lifetime. They are the folks that will take away your choices for you out of some sense of superiority. At some level, they seem to think that common people are idiots and they with their superior intellect are needed to take control of their lives for the greater good.

The more you get into that side of the political spectrum, the greater this sense seems to be. They expect that people should feel grateful and loyal to them for making the world a better place. Anyone who wants to take responsibility for their own lives are viewed as evil. If you look at the history of man, the greatest amount of people killed by their own governments are those in countries devoted to making a human utopia on earth. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Robert Mugabe and others all are all examples of this. Before them were those that used religion to bring a paradise on earth that was not as bloody only because they did not have the population or the technology to kill as many people.

It is not those that want to do evil that scare me. It is those that want to do good and will brook no opposition to this great vision they have for the future that scare me. The people that would not give me the freedom to make my own choices, but insist on making them for me and expect me to be happy about it are the ones I fear. I do not want to be taken care of, I want to be free to make my own choices.

 

[Doc_Jude]

Then we are agreed in that the behaviors that are found in animals are not necessarily the behaviors that well-mannered, peaceful and loving people should mirror?

Aberrant behavior isn't tolerated by any animal culture. In human culture, murder is allowed for the "right" reasons. All kinds of aberrant behavior can be "justified". The end justifies the means. A Necessary Evil. Normally these behaviors would be condemned but in the right situations, they are accepted.

I don't see the human animal as that much different than others, we just are better at justifying our actions.

**********THE MORMON SECTION************

...........

*************THE SIN SECTION***************

...............

Likewise, I have examined homsexuality and decided that it is not "right" for me. I have two nice neighbers who are believed to be in a "same gender" relationship; it is legal and does not harm me...we are friendly towards each other and they are nice people. If it is a "sin" then it is between them and their God, and has nothing to do with me. I have my hands full with what I myself continue to do and consider "wrong" for me.

I do not align the animal behavior of eating their young with homosexuality. I only point out that we cannot use animal behavior to derive appropriate human behavior (and although i believe humans to be animals, for the purpose of that sentence I exclude the group of human animals from the other groups of animals).
You are to be congratulated on winning over the best scientific minds of the 21st century to your way thinking.

Okay, I got it here.

Michael, "if animals do it, then it's okay for us" sounds like justification based on an appeal to nature; nature, evolution or whatever it is, sounds like "an appeal to authority" to me.

You're a creationist and you believe in a big "G" god that has assigned sins and stuff to humanity. Okay. Am I correct? So, at this point, debate over. Right? I'm not going to debate with someone that fills in the blanks in their argument with faith. It's a waste of time.

Althought that was a slight attempt at funniness on my part, I know what you're saying. I do not know where many human behaviors originate, whether biological, psychological, toxicological or what ever...I just know that some behaviors don't work for me.

So, after much study & reflection, you've come to the conclusion that homosexuality "just doesn't work for you"? Ha. Okay.

By the way, one of my favorite people. One that I worked with in the past and have since recruited to work for me is a homosexual man. I think the world of him and his abilities. He has, in the past, invited me to some of parties at his house (and he described what goes on) and I declined; but I'm happy to have lunch, dinner or most normal social functions with him.
As I said, I don't know what the origin of it is. It may be a reaction to overpopulation; perhaps Roman world was overpopulated?
Likewise, I don't hate or revile homosexuals.

You don't hate gays, & some of your best friends are gays? Great. I'm sure they'd all be happy about what you posted to date in this thread, then.

I do note that birds eat pebbles which help them digest food. I abstain from pebblery but will defend your legal right to do it if you so choose.

Huh. I don't suppose that this decision has anything to do with the fact that birds have completely different digestive systems than ours...

Good for them. It may be that they are happy, peaceful creatures. It may be that female managed societies are peacful in humans, too. That would be okay by me. I'm sure there's a point to the Bonobo quote? I'd like to see a peacful society where people do no harm to one another. What can you and I do to bring it about (besides arguing on the internet)?

Don't know, don't care...don't need to know, don't care to know. There are, however, people who are homosexual and they are first and foremost people.

So... you back peddle & dive for the neutral ground.

Have fun with your belief system. I'm out.

 

[michaeledward]

Ray wrote,



Which got this response.



I thought what you wrote over for a few days and I have to agree with you. But it seems to be the reasons that if I had a choice, I would go with the republican candidate, all else being equal.

It has been my observation that parents that do not take part in their kids education and upringing- or do the very minimum they can- produce terrible kids. You can have the best schools and teachers, throw money at them and the kids still turn out to be worthless.

So you are saying that parents who want the freedom to do the best for their kids should vote Republican. And those who don't want to be bothered with their kids even enough to choose what school they will go to and just want the state to take care of everything should vote Democratic.

Aside from those folks that just want the state to do things for them, there also seems to be one other group that would vote Democratic, those that want to be in control of taking care of other people. I have run into a few of those in my lifetime. They are the folks that will take away your choices for you out of some sense of superiority. At some level, they seem to think that common people are idiots and they with their superior intellect are needed to take control of their lives for the greater good.

The more you get into that side of the political spectrum, the greater this sense seems to be. They expect that people should feel grateful and loyal to them for making the world a better place. Anyone who wants to take responsibility for their own lives are viewed as evil. If you look at the history of man, the greatest amount of people killed by their own governments are those in countries devoted to making a human utopia on earth. Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Robert Mugabe and others all are all examples of this. Before them were those that used religion to bring a paradise on earth that was not as bloody only because they did not have the population or the technology to kill as many people.

It is not those that want to do evil that scare me. It is those that want to do good and will brook no opposition to this great vision they have for the future that scare me. The people that would not give me the freedom to make my own choices, but insist on making them for me and expect me to be happy about it are the ones I fear. I do not want to be taken care of, I want to be free to make my own choices.

That a discussion can go from public education to Stalin in a half a dozen paragraphs is an incredible deterioration of that conversation.

 

[Ray]

Aberrant behavior isn't tolerated by any animal culture. In human culture, murder is allowed for the "right" reasons.

Murder is not allowed, killing in some circumstances is. There is a legal difference in deaths.

All kinds of aberrant behavior can be "justified". The end justifies the means. A Necessary Evil.

I do not agree that evil can be justified. Although there are times I try to rationalize my own bad behavior, it still doesn't make it right.

You're a creationist and

I do not believe that the earth was created from nothing in 6 literal days. I don't know the mechanism used to make the earth nor the actual span of time. I do believe that the earth was created from material that was already in the area.

Perhaps there was a big bang a very long time ago, it seems to make sense with what is now known.

you believe in a big "G" god

I believe in a Heavenly Father who is the father of my spirit.

that has assigned sins and stuff to humanity.

I don't know about "assigning sins and stuff" but everyone seems to have a code of conduct. I have one.

...So, at this point, debate over. Right? I'm not going to debate with someone that fills in the blanks in their argument with faith. It's a waste of time.

If you mean the debate about what you believe versus what I believe, sure, it can be over. I won't change your mind any more than you'll change mine.

Huh. I don't suppose that this decision has anything to do with the fact that birds have completely different digestive systems than ours...

Very good. Now go from the very specific complete difference (between that animal and us) to the more general truth that we are different from other animals in many respects; and that their behaviors do not necessarily apply to humans.

So... you back peddle & dive for the neutral ground.

Have fun with your belief system. I'm out.

I accept your word that Bonobos are as you describe them...no back-peddling there, no diving for neutral ground. If you want me to argue about that, then I need to read up on Bonobos.

I'm not sure what you think neutral ground or back-peddling is but if you think that I will condemn and call for the extermination of homosexuals, then it ain't going to happen. Conversely, if you think I'm going to embrace ("embrace" as in "to take up especially readily or gladly") that life-style, it also ain't going to happen. If that's neutral and back-peddling, then so be it.

 

[Marginal]

It has been my observation that parents that do not take part in their kids education and upringing- or do the very minimum they can- produce terrible kids. You can have the best schools and teachers, throw money at them and the kids still turn out to be worthless.

So you are saying that parents who want the freedom to do the best for their kids should vote Republican. And those who don't want to be bothered with their kids even enough to choose what school they will go to and just want the state to take care of everything should vote Democratic.

That's the strangest spin I've seen on the topic in a while. It presumes that people act only upon layers of selfishness. At the best, you look out for you and yours, at the worst, you look out only for yourself. Nice.

Really though, this isn't just about parents wanting to do well for their kids. It's about the level of education all the kids in the population should be receiving. If you simply look out for you kid and give no consideration for anyone else, it's going to be hard to raise anyone more socially viable than Paris Hilton.

 

[Mr. E]

That's the strangest spin I've seen on the topic in a while. It presumes that people act only upon layers of selfishness.

It has been my observation that many people claiming to seek the best for everyone are really only looking out for their self interest. The truely honest look out for thier interest, and respect other people when they look out after theirs.

Really though, this isn't just about parents wanting to do well for their kids. It's about the level of education all the kids in the population should be receiving.

One is related to the other. If the parents don't even care enough to make those types of choices for them and instead try to pass off it off to the state, then no matter how good the teachers are the kids do not turn out as great as the parents who put in a lot of care.