Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 107
  1. #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    On behalf of all the mods, I resent that. We try to be as fair as possible, political viewpoints be damned. If you have objections to things, please raise them with us, but do not insult the job we do without a) reference to evidence and b) giving us a chance to recognize our mistakes and fix them.
    You and Toolkit have closed TWO threads today that were political in nature. One was mine and then you closed the Michael Moore thread when cellmatrix entered it and began expressing contrary opinions.

    You have made no secret of your political leanings- and that's fine. But it just appears to me that your views are influencing your decision to close certain threads that are disagreeable to your agenda. If I'm wrong, I sincerely apologize, but that is how it appears. I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt however if you have an explanation.
  2. #42  
    I locked the "good news" thread because of the blanket attacks on Democrats ("all Democrats are sore losers"). There is more to a thread than the post that starts it. I closed the Moore thread because all it was containing was comments on Michael's waist line. Not exactly high discourse. Please reconsider your wholesale dismissal of my actions.,
  3. #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by KRamsauer
    I locked the "good news" thread because of the blanket attacks on Democrats ("all Democrats are sore losers"). There is more to a thread than the post that starts it. I closed the Moore thread because all it was containing was comments on Michael's waist line. Not exactly high discourse. Please reconsider your wholesale dismissal of my actions.,
    Is it too much to ask that you state specifically WHY you are closing the thread? That would go a long way in terms of correcting the impression that you are being preferential based on your own agenda.
  4. #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Following this line of reasoning, I suppose you would agree that:

    1. A man marrying ten 18-year old girls is ok, because everyone consents to the relationship;

    2. A man and a woman can use whatever drugs they want in their own home, because they each consent to using the drugs;

    3. Man and woman can shoot each other in a suicide pact, if they both consent to each person shooting the other?

    For each example cited above, such conduct is against the law, regardless of consent, because the conduct has no socially redeeming value.
    Consent is necessary but not sufficient. I made no claims on the other three cases you mention. Stop putting words in my mouth. As I said, bring it up when they can give consent, and I'm sure I'll have no problem coming up with other reasons. Since they can't give consent, I don't have to.
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Is it too much to ask that you state specifically WHY you are closing the thread? That would go a long way in terms of correcting the impression that you are being preferential based on your own agenda.
    I will try. (BTW I don't have an agenda other than keeping discourse fair and informative).
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by metsfan
    Consent is necessary but not sufficient. I made no claims on the other three cases you mention. Stop putting words in my mouth.
    I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was describing three examples of consenting adults engaging in unlawful conduct, in order to argue that consent should not be the test for all such issues.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was describing three examples of consenting adults engaging in unlawful conduct, in order to argue that consent should not be the test for all such issues.
    I was arguing that consent should be a test, not the test. If the consent test fails, there's no reason to continue.
    Units - Unit conversion for webOS!
    Treo 180->270->600->650->Blackberry Pearl->Palm Pre
  8. santas's Avatar
    Posts
    624 Posts
    Global Posts
    641 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I like your use of the phrase "Marriage as viewed by law" because it correctly denotes that marriage exists (and existed) apart from law. NOTE: The concept of marriage did not originate from law. As such, law "views" it.

    And, as such, law can not affect it. Marriage is, what it is, as established by its originator.

    The establishers of law in the USofA noticed that marriage is beneficial to the society at large (statistically speaking, marriage is consistently proven as a reducer of tendencies toward crime, poverty, violence, etc.) And in recogniztion of that benefit, provided incentives to encourage Marriage.

    This is not marriage, as in the legal status. This is Marriage as in one man, and one woman, in a loving, self-sacrificing relationship for life.

    As such, the question you raise is: will the United States of America, enact law(s) that grant(s) to other relationships the same legal standing as Marriage?

    The question I raise is, what benefits do other relationships bring to society? I am clear about what benefits such laws would bring to people in other relationships. But, what additional value do those relationships bring to the greater society in and of themselves?
    It's a hypothetical question, but I'd bet good money that you'd see the same benefits from gay marriages that you see from straight marriages: reduced crime/poverty/violence as well as increased quality of care for any dependents.

    Let's be realistic. The issue here isn't whether there are tangible benefits like the those you mentioned. The issue is that peoples religious beliefs thing gay relationships are 'immoral' and that having society sanction them makes the society 'immoral'
    Less than 400 posts to get my own little treo icon!
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    Sorry, I won't be fighting for the "getting rid of Christianity" part of Chick's rantings. Will you? The Soviets and the Chinese already tried that. As your pal John Kerry said, "God Bless America."
    I resent your mischaracterization.

    I am a Christian and my beliefs drive my convictions. As much as they would like you to believe, Jerry Fallwell or George Bush do not have an inner line to God. I have my own ideas about what Jesus would be sad about in our society today, and I'm not perfect, but I try to follow His teachings the best I can.

    Making fun of someone's politics is one thing, but maligning someone's religion, whether is is calling a muslim a sheet head, equating liberalism with atheism, or the like, this starts to get real offensive.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/03/2004 at 08:55 PM.
  10. #50  
    do other countries choose their leaders based on how they think america feels about them?

    don't kid yourselves.
    about being alone in the world - since when is it necessary for a nation to gain the approval of every other nation before they take any action?

    don't they teach you in 3rd grade that you can't please everyone?

    don't they teach you," do what you think is right, and if some folks don't like it, to hell with them." ?

    are you supposed to wait for everyone in the classroom to like you before you act independently for yourself?

    if all you do is wait wait for such approval before doing anything, are you truly a self-determining populace? would that type of nation garner respect? or would it take on the stance of a mere puppet for the whims of the world?

    I think it would. you don't hand over the workings of your nation to a group of foreign interests who may or may not give a sh3t about you. sorry, I don't subscribe to that mentality.

    sure , ideally, having the majority of the world sympathize with your leader would be the best scenario, but if that doesn't work out, so be it.

    you don't choose your govt leaders based on whether or not WE ( AMERICA ) likes them or not.
    so get off that hypocritical soapbox and get real.

    listen, switzerland, or china, whatever, we, america disapprove of your leader, GET RID OF THEM!

    are you going to do that because you want america to be pleased?

    please, you'd elect that person BECAUSE america doesn't like them, and flip the bird while doing so.

    I don't buy this [bogus] argument for a minute. you have your opinion on how you feel things should be handled in the world, we have ours . deal with it.


    [edit to remove profanity - KR]
    Last edited by KRamsauer; 11/03/2004 at 09:15 PM.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    ...whether is is calling a muslim a sheet head, equating liberalism with atheism, or the like, this starts to get real offensive.
    I really dont like correcting you cause you get soo upset, but the joke was about a muslim terrorist
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I really dont like correcting you cause you get soo upset, but the joke was about a muslim terrorist
    I can take criticism, so please do feel free. Actually I think you do say some pretty funny things a lot of the time. But I do have a problem with the muslim joke. You direct it at terrorists, but everyone who is muslim and wearing a turban, they hear you saying that they are wearing a piece of "sheet" on their head. Can't you see how this could offend?
  13. #53  
    why does everyone have to be so negative? we live in the best place where anything is possible-look at that obama guy from IL. If that is not a story of what america is really all about i dont know what is. I am a bush supporter that would have voted for him in a heartbeat.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    I can take criticism, so please do feel free. Actually I think you do say some pretty funny things a lot of the time. But I do have a problem with the muslim joke. You direct it at terrorists, but everyone who is muslim and wearing a turban, they hear you saying that they are wearing a piece of "sheet" on their head. Can't you see how this could offend?
    I certainly can. Since no one here actually knows anyone else, that was why I used a smiley with the tongue out. It's called sarcasm. If you are muslim and were offended, I apologise.
    Unfortunately, we have all been guilty of the occasional inane comment, I think it comes with the territory. What I find disconcerting is the complete lack of respect shown to others with differing viewpoints. While I supported the President, no one would know that I disagree with him on many of his social stands. No one would know that because no one knows me or really cares. This whole place is like Howard Stern on steroids. The more shocking, the better. Rather then have a conversation, everybody spends a great deal of time yelling at everybody else. Anyway, whatever
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by BigKenny
    why does everyone have to be so negative? we live in the best place where anything is possible-look at that obama guy from IL. If that is not a story of what america is really all about i dont know what is. I am a bush supporter that would have voted for him in a heartbeat.
    That's why he got like 80% of the vote. Alan Keyes is like a very strange person.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  16. procure's Avatar
    Posts
    302 Posts
    Global Posts
    325 Global Posts
    #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    ... to the 48 % who voted for Kerry. At least the next four years will not be your fault.

    The degree of international isolation the Bush administration has managed to achieve is impressive btw.: In an international poll by GlobalScan, from 35 nations polled only Nigeria, the Philipines and Poland favoured Bush. India and Thailand were about split like the US. Other results were:

    Bush vs. Kerry in Percent:

    Great Britain: 16 vs. 47 %
    Italy: 14 vs. 58 %
    Russia: 10 vs. 20 %
    Spain: 7 vs. 45 %
    Switzerland: 7 vs. 78 %
    Norway: 7 vs. 74 %
    Sweden: 14 vs. 58 %
    Japan: 23 vs. 43 %
    Canada: 16 vs. 61 %
    Mexico: 18 vs. 38 %
    China: 12 vs. 52 %

    etc. ....

    Not that this will matter for the Bush supporters, they are happy about being alone in world, right?
    This is the only poll that matters:

    USA: Bush 51% vs. Kerry 48%

    If we were electing the President of the WORLD, then those other polls might actually mean something. As it stands, they're irrelevant and have no bearing on the election.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    I certainly can. Since no one here actually knows anyone else, that was why I used a smiley with the tongue out. It's called sarcasm. If you are muslim and were offended, I apologise.
    Unfortunately, we have all been guilty of the occasional inane comment, I think it comes with the territory. What I find disconcerting is the complete lack of respect shown to others with differing viewpoints. While I supported the President, no one would know that I disagree with him on many of his social stands. No one would know that because no one knows me or really cares. This whole place is like Howard Stern on steroids. The more shocking, the better. Rather then have a conversation, everybody spends a great deal of time yelling at everybody else. Anyway, whatever
    Claire, sorry to make a big deal out of it, and I do not disrespect your views. Quite the opposite, I think you have lots of interesting and funny things to say. I will try to remember are not members of opposite camps, but two people with more in common than we think. I look forward to more good discussions.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 11/04/2004 at 12:10 AM.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    Be careful Chick- if you post too many opposing opinions about the election, they will close your thread.
    What kind of nonsense is that?
    we never close a thread because of opposing opinions, if we did off topic whould be in total lock down.
    We only close it when things get out of hand...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  19. #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by cglaguna
    Yep, and their idea of a good cultural vacation is two weeks at Disney World.
    Please refrain from painting with such a broad brush...
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by Eurokitty
    You have made no secret of your political leanings- and that's fine. But it just appears to me that your views are influencing your decision to close certain threads that are disagreeable to your agenda. If I'm wrong, I sincerely apologize, but that is how it appears. I am more than willing to give you the benefit of the doubt however if you have an explanation.
    You also know mine and I feel neither of us moderates with politics in mind.
    And even if we would the rest of the mods would keep us in check..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions