Page 47 of 71 FirstFirst ... 37424344454647484950515257 ... LastLast
Results 921 to 940 of 1405
  1. #921  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    The type of Fat used in restaurants?
    Loosing the freedom to smoke around people who want to breathe air?


    I'll never forget seeing this big block of white lard going into the fryer at Jack in the box. I've never eaten a french fry since.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  2. #922  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    to you these are not the same. Based on simple conservative belief systems, ie catholic church, contraception is against gods will. sex should be only used to procreate. Much of the religious right, in the US, Canada, hell around the world, believe this. Much of the antiabortionist rhetoric is from the same right wing religious zealots. What i find hilarious, many of these same people would have anyone from doctors to the actual woman receiving the abortion should be put to death. A few people have died as a result of this extremist set of views.

    Whether you want to say they are the same or not is of no consequence, many of the right wing antiabortionist are against govt control, health care, etc etc, but insist on controlling the "rank and file of America". The holier than thou attitude is just plain stupid. Personally, I find the whole thing abhorrent, not abortion, the fact that a few very vocal, very powerful people can and do control the majority. NO I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control. But to say a 12 year old girl who is raped can not have an abortion is stupid.

    To the person who commented on the mental stress caused
    to a woman many years after the abortion, while I can not say personally that i have experienced this, male here, I have four sisters, one of whom was raped, who had to experience an abortion, to this day she is pretty messed up, between the rape and the abortion who can say. yes there will be issues, I do know, if she had the child as a result of the rape, my little sister would have been far more messed up then she is now. In talks with her, she is sad about the child, but repeatedly says she would have hated that child inside, as the child would have been the personification of the man who raped her at 14.

    My sister received extensive mental health care, the good doctors, said from their experience, she is doing extremely well. Hate to have seen what would have been the result if she had not had free health care to get the help she needed. Frankly she is pretty messed up.

    To those that believe that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances, give your head a shake, place yourself in the shoes of a young girl, or hell the shoes of any woman, who for a myriad of reasons needs an abortion. I have even heard some of those fine religious right people in both our fine countries, say that even if the woman will die, she should not have an abortion. I know I know that is few and far between, but none the less, a statement made by the same people.

    just my two cents worth.
    "It applies the Hyde amendment — which bars federal funding for abortion except in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother — to the health care bill."

    I'm am so sorry for your sister. It is such a sad animalistic behavior. ****** & Child Molesters are of the lowest scum!
    Just call me Berd.
  3. #923  
    "It applies the Hyde amendment — which bars federal funding for abortion except in the case of rape, incest or the life of the mother — to the health care bill."

    What other legit reason does a woman have for an abortion?
    Just call me Berd.
  4. #924  
    Quote Originally Posted by RoscoePColtrane View Post
    Let me address a big misconception first: Universities are not limiting the number of Med students admitted; the universities get there accreditation for the programs and that has the stipulation on how many students they are allowed to admit, so technically it is the AMA making those determinations.

    As far as the reform as a whole; it is misguided to make those with wealth and privilege feel better about themselves because they are helping those in need. You will not have a successful reform with the public option plan included. In my experience the most difficult and inefficient insurance system around is the Medicare system and its sister Medicaid. The public option is the mirror of these programs based on documentation of the last draft of the bill. The other problem with the public option is it will passively force companies to stop offering insurance all together, and I will explain; it will be impossible for a company to defend to the board of directors why they are spending 16%(an average) per employee for healthcare benefits when they can pay the 8% employee payroll tax and know there employees can just sign up for a cheap public plan. Inevitably this would force the majority of Americans to the cheaper public option. This would put the Government in control of the majority of Americans healthcare and then the medicare/medicaid problems will become even greater.

    I have been in healthcare managment for years and have seen the good, the bad, and the ugly with our current system. It is not perfect, it is not horrible, and it is not without need of an overhaul, but when control of our Healthcare leaves the hands of the american people and is run sole by the Government we will lose the freedom of choice we have now. We are giving up so much freedom lately, i.e: limits on what type of fat can be used in some restaurants, laws to prohibit smoking in private businesses, even types of clothing that can be worn in public. We should look very closely before we give up total control of our own Health.
    First, the AMA does not decide how many students are admitted to medical schools. The schools determine that based on the resources they have available. They are accredited not directly by the AMA, but by the Liason Committee on Medical Education, which is sponsored by the AMA and the AAMC. Having participated in LCME accreditation visits at several different locations, I can tell you outright that the AMA has nothing directly to do with determining the number of students. If the number of students admitted is greater than the resources can support, then the LCME might suggest changes. That is hardly determining the number of students. Second, I disagree totally with the comment that Medicare is "the most difficult and inefficient system around". Is it possible you have a bias? Who do you work for as a "health care manager"? As a practitioner, having to deal with 7 different private plans who each have different requirements, and require many person-hours of effort just to be able to bill, Medicare is a piece of cake...and any reimbursement differences are made up for by lack of phone time arguing about reimbursement. BCBS is ten times more difficult to deal with than Medicare, which is why our hospital is suing them. Medicaid, admittedly, is less responsive and more poorly organized, and in my opinion, it's because it is a shared program with states, which is why I have concerns about state-run plans. If health insurers can't decrease their costs, which is necessary to decrease the cost of health care, then tough luck. If they can't come close to the costs of Medicare, then they need to close their doors. If you think Medicare is so bad, you are in opposition to the actual recipients of Medicare, who are quite pleased with what they get. Do you think that's important? I do. This horrible "health care in the hands of the government" is pretty highly rated by the actual people that use it. And very few doctors don't take Medicare, and deal just fine with the "inefficiency" and you know what? They make a pretty good living from it. Hospitals don't like DRG's either, but they have been responsible for cutting health care costs more than any other effort this century. And who develops and implements them? Medicare. And yes, the financial issues with Medicare can be corrected (for a start, do away with the drug company giveaway on the drug benefit).

    And finally....for you to say the current system is not "horrible", only reinforces the concept that you just can't see what the lack of a true system means to the 30-50 million uninsured, who have little access to your "non-horrible" system. But nobody seems to really care about them....as long as they have a job that provides insurance.
  5. #925  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    To the person who commented on the mental stress caused
    to a woman many years after the abortion, while I can not say personally that i have experienced this, male here, I have four sisters, one of whom was raped, who had to experience an abortion, to this day she is pretty messed up, between the rape and the abortion who can say. yes there will be issues, I do know, if she had the child as a result of the rape, my little sister would have been far more messed up then she is now. In talks with her, she is sad about the child, but repeatedly says she would have hated that child inside, as the child would have been the personification of the man who raped her at 14..
    I would be said person. First, sorry to hear about your sister's situation and rape. I think we all can agree that there is a difference between being raped and having consentual sex. I don't have rape and abortion statistics and really don't want to take the time to look it up, but, I would say the majority of abortions are not related to rape....maybe regrets....but I doubt rape.
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  6. #926  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    to you these are not the same.
    This seems obviously why he asked you to explain why _you_ were saying they were equivalent. Are you now saying it was just a straw man?
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  7. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #927  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    to you these are not the same. Based on simple conservative belief systems, ie catholic church, contraception is against gods will. sex should be only used to procreate. Much of the religious right, in the US, Canada, hell around the world, believe this. Much of the antiabortionist rhetoric is from the same right wing religious zealots. What i find hilarious, many of these same people would have anyone from doctors to the actual woman receiving the abortion should be put to death. A few people have died as a result of this extremist set of views.

    Whether you want to say they are the same or not is of no consequence, many of the right wing antiabortionist are against govt control, health care, etc etc, but insist on controlling the "rank and file of America". The holier than thou attitude is just plain stupid. Personally, I find the whole thing abhorrent, not abortion, the fact that a few very vocal, very powerful people can and do control the majority. NO I do not believe abortion should be used as birth control. But to say a 12 year old girl who is raped can not have an abortion is stupid.

    To the person who commented on the mental stress caused
    to a woman many years after the abortion, while I can not say personally that i have experienced this, male here, I have four sisters, one of whom was raped, who had to experience an abortion, to this day she is pretty messed up, between the rape and the abortion who can say. yes there will be issues, I do know, if she had the child as a result of the rape, my little sister would have been far more messed up then she is now. In talks with her, she is sad about the child, but repeatedly says she would have hated that child inside, as the child would have been the personification of the man who raped her at 14.

    My sister received extensive mental health care, the good doctors, said from their experience, she is doing extremely well. Hate to have seen what would have been the result if she had not had free health care to get the help she needed. Frankly she is pretty messed up.

    To those that believe that abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances, give your head a shake, place yourself in the shoes of a young girl, or hell the shoes of any woman, who for a myriad of reasons needs an abortion. I have even heard some of those fine religious right people in both our fine countries, say that even if the woman will die, she should not have an abortion. I know I know that is few and far between, but none the less, a statement made by the same people.

    just my two cents worth.
    Thanks for sharing that but it doesn't address the question.
  8. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #928  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    Science is, above all, a means of acquiring knowledge using scientific methodology (and, yes, I know I used the word in the definition...sue me). Teaching religion as literature, or as a comparative religion-based social studies course can certainly be taught in schools, as long as its done in a non-proselytizing manner.....kind of like you would teach any sort of fiction or fairy tale.
    Apparently, I am not getting through to you people who appear to have a desire to have schools make judgments about Religions, defining them as fiction. Religion is not literature (although it often includes various forms of literature) and it isn't science. It is a cultural/social study. Your bias to categorize Religions in the way you want using the influence of schools is telling I think.

    If you think it is fiction--that's your choice, but you can no more disprove it than I can prove it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    However, teaching religion (and it's step-child, intelligent design) in science class defies the evidence-based methodology that students need to be taught in science, and is simply bad science.
    I never advocated teaching it as science--that is as nonsensical to me as it is to teach it as fiction. What it definitively is, is a cultural element and should be treated as such in terms of schools. If others want to pursue the study of Religion using the scientific method, they are welcome to do so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    People use the argument that "science is not fact", as if that invalidates it. Science, by its very nature, is an exploratory field and doesn't claim to know everything...but it has a specific method of clarifying what it doesn't know, when faced with new evidence. It doesn't simply ignore evidence and claim divine intervention.
    I am not attempting to invalidate anything. What you say about Science is true, but that is not how people claiming to represent science state it. Very often (if not most often) Science is NOT presented as a changing, exploratory field--as you say, but as fact. Many people attempt to create the illusion that Science is fact, and things that are not scientific cannot be factual (or as you would say--are fictional), and that simply is not true.

    As far as "ignoring evidence"--I'm sorry to tell you this, but Scientists do this all the time. They make all sorts of judgments and decisions, choosing what is relevant and what isn't. Science is not at all a perfect "science" as it were. Science is FULL of bias, and subjective views and preferences.

    I'm making NO attempt to diminish science, but there is no dichotomy Science and fiction--that simply is not the case. When it comes down to it, we know very little for certain. Rather, we know that certain things work under certain conditions and that at least is repeatable, but as anyone who has an understanding of how science has evolved, knows that this changes over time as well. What we thought was "fact" is often revealed to be part of the story that applies under certain conditions.

    This isn't directly related to what you've said, but I'm amused/amazed at the intellectual hypocrisy that many anti-religious folks (not referring to anyone specifically) tend to have. They sneer at the beliefs of Religious people, stating that there is no proof (and there isn't much if any) for that, but they happily (and often with great ignorance) accept many, many things in their lives without a shred of proof--they simply believe it.

    In other words--most people simply believe (through the same mechanism--faith) that something is true. Unless you have directly proven it you really do not know that something is true or not--you simply believe whatever evidence (if any) is told to you. Let's even make this a step easier--that the science-faithful don't have to perform the experiment, but merely review the work of others. How many people out there can even begin to understand these very complex subjects in a substantive, analytical way? Not many. Yet, these people proudly declare themselves above the magic-story primitives. Most people simply believe most everything they "know" without even attempting to discern whether it is true or factual or not.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/10/2009 at 03:11 PM. Reason: Additional point
  9. #929  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I am not attempting to invalidate anything. What you say about Science is true, but that is not how people claiming to represent science state it. Very often (if not most often) Science is NOT presented as a changing, exploratory field--as you say, but as fact. Many people attempt to create the illusion that Science is fact, and things that are not scientific cannot be factual (or as you would say--are fictional), and that simply is not true.

    As far as "ignoring evidence"--I'm sorry to tell you this, but Scientists do this all the time. They make all sorts of judgments and decisions, choosing what is relevant and what isn't. Science is not at all a perfect "science" as it were. Science is FULL of bias, and subjective views and preferences.

    ...

    This isn't directly related to what you've said, but I'm amused/amazed at the intellectual hypocrisy that many anti-religious folks (not referring to anyone specifically) tend to have. They sneer at the beliefs of Religious people, stating that there is no proof (and there isn't much if any) for that, but they happily (and often with great ignorance) accept many, many things in their lives without a shred of proof--they simply believe it.

    In other words--most people simply believe (through the same mechanism--faith) that something is true. Unless you have directly proven it you really do not know that something is true or not--you simply believe whatever evidence (if any) is told to you. Let's even make this a step easier--that the science-faithful don't have to perform the experiment, but merely review the work of others. How many people out there can even begin to understand these very complex subjects in a substantive, analytical way? Not many. Yet, these people proudly declare themselves above the magic-story primitives. Most people simply believe most everything they "know" without even attempting to discern whether it is true or factual or not.

    KAM
    There are opinions and there is fact. Scientific fact is not opinion. That doesn't mean it can't change; it means that it is true for that particular time. Regardless of what other people think about science, scientists know this to be true. Do scientists ever "ignore evidence"? Yes, if they do a bad job at what they do. Part of my time, for many years, has been training doctors to use evidence in their practice, instead of "beliefs" passed down by some arrogant pseudoinformed superior. Evidence stands on its own. It represents the best way to practice medicine, and it just so happens that when you practice using evidence-based medicine, not only does the quality of care go up, but it's also cheaper. Using treatments that don't work is a great way to waste money. If someone who is responsible for providing care to someone accepts something on faith, they are doing a bad job. That's different than choosing a course of care based on probability, because like it or not, every doctor practices with uncertainty. We can't do whole body CT scans on every patient with abdominal pain, so we use a combination of knowledge and hypothesis testing to determin a course of action.

    That has nothing to do with beliefs, you might say....until those beliefs are in direct contrast with science. I have personally seen two individuals die because they chose not to be transfused because of religious beliefs, and both would have survived for some time if they had been transfused. Is that OK with you? Can they make that determination to die because of a belief system that is based on no evidence, but only on faith, with no thought to the medical process that says they can easily survive?

    Religion as a placebo seems to work well in people. It gives them hope, which is always a good thing. It just has no place whatsoever in politics, health care, or anything else in public life. If you like it, great. Keep it to yourself. And don't refuse to allow your children to be treated with life-saving treatments because you are blinded to the realilty that religion is nothing other than faith. If I sound angry about this, I am, because I've seen this happen and there is no excuse for it. And the rightwingers that are so deadset against the government getting involved in care decisions (read Terry Schiavo) are perfectly willing to argue that the parents should have the right to allow their child to die in the name of religious freedom...except, of course, while it's only an embryo. As the old saw goes, republicans love me....until I'm born.
    Last edited by davidra; 11/10/2009 at 04:33 PM.
  10. #930  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    [...] And the rightwingers that are so deadset against the government getting involved in care decisions (read Terry Schiavo) are perfectly willing to argue that the parents should have the right to allow their child to die in the name of religious freedom [...]
    Except that the right-wingers in the Terry Schiavo case were for the government getting involved trying to prevent her legal guardian (read husband) from allowing her to die.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  11. #931  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Except that the right-wingers in the Terry Schiavo case were for the government getting involved trying to prevent her legal guardian (read husband) from allowing her to die.
    I should know better than to get into a semantics discussion with you...but the courts determined that her husband had the rights to determine her treatment. I suppose I could have said the courts instead, and yes, the right wingers were all for the big bad government when they convinced Bush to sign legislation denying him that right.
  12. #932  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I should know better than to get into a semantics discussion with you...
    It's not a semantics argument. It's an argument of facts.
    but the courts determined that her husband had the rights to determine her treatment.
    Exactly. Not the parents.
    I suppose I could have said the courts instead,
    Then you'd have been factually correct that they ruled in favor of her guardian to let her body die. However, her guardian was not a parent. Her parents wanted to keep her body alive.
    and yes, the right wingers were all for the big bad government when they convinced Bush to sign legislation denying him that right.
    Exactly. The Republicans passed the legislation (that was when they still had control) and sided with the parents to try and keep her body alive.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #933  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Religion as a placebo seems to work well in people. It gives them hope, which is always a good thing. It just has no place whatsoever in politics, health care, or anything else in public life. If you like it, great. Keep it to yourself. And don't refuse to allow your children to be treated with life-saving treatments because you are blinded to the realilty that religion is nothing other than faith. If I sound angry about this, I am, because I've seen this happen and there is no excuse for it. And the rightwingers that are so deadset against the government getting involved in care decisions (read Terry Schiavo) are perfectly willing to argue that the parents should have the right to allow their child to die in the name of religious freedom...except, of course, while it's only an embryo. As the old saw goes, republicans love me....until I'm born.
    I got nothing from this except that religion sucks and right-wingers suck. Perhaps that was the intended take-away from this argument but it truly makes no sense. Tell me who denies their children blood transfusions and tell me what they have to do with "right-wingers" in general. To my knowledge, the only the Jehovah's Witness and possibly some Amish or Mennonite groups do this. And, again, to my knowledge none of those groups can be considered "right-wingers" in any meaningful way.

    Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Just saying.
  14. #934  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I got nothing from this except that religion sucks and right-wingers suck. Perhaps that was the intended take-away from this argument but it truly makes no sense. Tell me who denies their children blood transfusions and tell me what they have to do with "right-wingers" in general. To my knowledge, the only the Jehovah's Witness and possibly some Amish or Mennonite groups do this. And, again, to my knowledge none of those groups can be considered "right-wingers" in any meaningful way.

    Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Just saying.
    Maybe a bit rambling, but the point was that both religion and conservatives try and interfere in the health care process....you know, insert themselves into the doctor/patient relationship. Neither of them have the right to do that. And if liberals try and arrange a healthcare system that does that, they would be just as wrong. But that is different than using evidence to determine the most appropriate treatment. Evidence is different than faith.
  15. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #935  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    There are opinions and there is fact. Scientific fact is not opinion. That doesn't mean it can't change; it means that it is true for that particular time.
    I don't believe that I stated otherwise.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    That has nothing to do with beliefs, you might say....until those beliefs are in direct contrast with science. I have personally seen two individuals die because they chose not to be transfused because of religious beliefs, and both would have survived for some time if they had been transfused. Is that OK with you? Can they make that determination to die because of a belief system that is based on no evidence, but only on faith, with no thought to the medical process that says they can easily survive?
    Yes, that is ok with me, because they are responsible for making choices in their own lives...or this case deaths. I wouldn't recommend it, and I don't agree with it, but that is irrelevant, but again--I respect individual rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Religion as a placebo seems to work well in people. It gives them hope, which is always a good thing. It just has no place whatsoever in politics, health care, or anything else in public life.
    It is amazing that you believe you can declare this for others. If that's what you believe, great, but you have no right to decide this for anyone else.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    If you like it, great. Keep it to yourself.
    How dare you. Keep it to myself? Who the hell do you think you are demanding that I hide who or what I believe, because your glorious "public" has decided that they cannot tolerate the existence of Religious beliefs in their view. We've got a little thing called the first amendment that prevents people of Religious belief from having to hide it from people, and to be able to practice it freely. I am not required to split who I am, when I go out in public, because someone thinks they can use their beliefs to override my right to mine, and the free practice of them. I'm not a Religious Person, a Scientific person, a Political person, a Professional Person, a family person separately--I'm a person, and whatever reason I do something is my business, not for you to exclude because you happen to dislike one component (perhaps more than one) of who I am.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And don't refuse to allow your children to be treated with life-saving treatments because you are blinded to the realilty that religion is nothing other than faith. If I sound angry about this, I am, because I've seen this happen and there is no excuse for it.
    Religion is faith, and I've never claimed anything contrary to that.
    I should probably note--I am arguing principle here, not my personal preference. I would not refuse to allow my child to be treated (at least nothing I can think of). If it involved killing another person to help my child, I'd find that immoral (religious or not), but I don't think that's what you are talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    And the rightwingers that are so deadset against the government getting involved in care decisions (read Terry Schiavo) are perfectly willing to argue that the parents should have the right to allow their child to die in the name of religious freedom...except, of course, while it's only an embryo. As the old saw goes, republicans love me....until I'm born.
    I'll not bother to respond to this, other than to say that I think that when a third party is involved (in this case a child...born or not) it is no longer a matter of individual choice--by definition, there is a third life involved. Until that Child is able to make decisions for themselves, a parent is responsible for them, and I would not ever advocate endangering them in such a manner.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/11/2009 at 08:22 AM. Reason: blown tag, additional point
  16. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #936  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I got nothing from this except that religion sucks and right-wingers suck. Perhaps that was the intended take-away from this argument but it truly makes no sense. Tell me who denies their children blood transfusions and tell me what they have to do with "right-wingers" in general. To my knowledge, the only the Jehovah's Witness and possibly some Amish or Mennonite groups do this. And, again, to my knowledge none of those groups can be considered "right-wingers" in any meaningful way.

    Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Just saying.
    While Davidra seems to have a tendency to take opportunities to attack "the right wing," this is not a political issue. I recall a few years ago there was a case where some vegan lunatics (not likely right-wingers, although they could be I guess) starved their baby to death, because they wanted to follow some idiotic (for a baby) vegan diet.

    Here's the fact--there are a lot of kooks out there, and while some people would like to pretend that this is a "right wing" or Religious issue, it may or may not be. There are plenty of left wing, or non-political kooks out there buying into all sorts of nonsense...or at least things that I think are nonsense.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 11/11/2009 at 08:36 AM. Reason: clarification
  17. #937  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    While Davidra seems to have a tendency to take opportunities to attack "the right wing," this is not a political issue. I recall a few years ago there was a case where some vegan lunatics (not likely right-wingers, although they could be I guess) starved their baby to death, because they wanted to follow some idiotic (for a baby) vegan diet.

    Here's the fact--there are a lot of kooks out there, and while some people would like to pretend that this is a "right wing" or Religious issue, it may or may not be. There are plenty of left wing, or non-political kooks out there buying into all sorts of nonsense...or at least things that I think are nonsense.

    KAM
    Is Tom Cruise a right wing lunatic? LOL Well, he may be a lunatic, but something tells me he isn't anywhere near the right. Didn't he go nuts not long ago because of the use of some medicine by Brook Shields? Of course, I don't know his political leanings but he is from Hollywood and haven't ever heard him being on the list of actors who "better watch it".
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton
  18. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #938  
    Quote Originally Posted by clemgrad85 View Post
    Is Tom Cruise a right wing lunatic? LOL Well, he may be a lunatic, but something tells me he isn't anywhere near the right. Didn't he go nuts not long ago because of the use of some medicine by Brook Shields? Of course, I don't know his political leanings but he is from Hollywood and haven't ever heard him being on the list of actors who "better watch it".
    Good example, and of course that could extend to many hollywood folks who are scientologists. Without getting into attacking someone's beliefs, the origin of Scientology is well known.

    Some people love to broad brush things, and pick things to attempt to project that onto larger groups. Why? Because its easy.

    In today's world, and in certain circlels where people fancy themselves sophisticated thinkers, it is popular to bash the pathetic little primitives who have religious beliefs. Oh, those pathetic little fools, who believe in "magic stories." The parade of scorn knows no end. Of course, many of these people are pseudo-intellectuals who don't know or care to understand the first thing about Religions, how they differ and what their beliefs actually are. They prefer the caricature--its what propagandists do.

    The question I think that people should be asking is why? Why is there such a need to actively attack people that have religious beliefs? I have a pretty good idea why (at least one reason), but that's even farther outside of the topic at hand than we already are.

    KAM
  19. #939  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Good example, and of course that could extend to many hollywood folks who are scientologists. Without getting into attacking someone's beliefs, the origin of Scientology is well known.

    Some people love to broad brush things, and pick things to attempt to project that onto larger groups. Why? Because its easy.

    In today's world, and in certain circlels where people fancy themselves sophisticated thinkers, it is popular to bash the pathetic little primitives who have religious beliefs. Oh, those pathetic little fools, who believe in "magic stories." The parade of scorn knows no end. Of course, many of these people are pseudo-intellectuals who don't know or care to understand the first thing about Religions, how they differ and what their beliefs actually are. They prefer the caricature--its what propagandists do.

    The question I think that people should be asking is why? Why is there such a need to actively attack people that have religious beliefs? I have a pretty good idea why (at least one reason), but that's even farther outside of the topic at hand than we already are.

    KAM
    I have the same response to this that I do to your prior post about keeping it to yourself. I don't care if you wear a t shirt stating your religions beliefs...in fact I just walked by a guy wearing a shirt that said "Please stop blaming your narrow-minded prejudices on God". I shook his hand. What I care about is a right-wing legislator, or for that matter a left-wing Catholic legislator letting their religious beliefs get in the way of their legislating, and infringing on my rights....or those of my daughter. I don't mind if they use their best judgment to determine whether or not they are actually representing their constituency....but I do oppose them making legislative decisions based on their singular religion.
  20. #940  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I have the same response to this that I do to your prior post about keeping it to yourself. I don't care if you wear a t shirt stating your religions beliefs...in fact I just walked by a guy wearing a shirt that said "Please stop blaming your narrow-minded prejudices on God". I shook his hand. What I care about is a right-wing legislator, or for that matter a left-wing Catholic legislator letting their religious beliefs get in the way of their legislating, and infringing on my rights....or those of my daughter. I don't mind if they use their best judgment to determine whether or not they are actually representing their constituency....but I do oppose them making legislative decisions based on their singular religion.
    I know I'll regret this....I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. Your beliefs are based on what? Is it based on simply what is right or wrong? What determines your decisions? Are you saying that if someone happens to believe in God, which is what that person may base their belief system on, they should not have the right to make legislative decisions based on that belief? Please explain.

    So if an atheist believes in some particular point, that is obviously not religious based, than that is fine and you can respect his/her coming to that decision (even though you may not agree with it). But if another person believes in the exact same point, but he/she gets it from their religious background, than you don't respect that decision because it is "tainted" with a religious slant?
    PalmPilot, PalmIIIc, Treo 650, Pre, Pre 3, Nokia 1020, Lumia 950

    "It's good to be the King" - Mel Brooks, History of the World, Part 1

    "I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." General George S. Patton

Posting Permissions