Awen27's Waterfall
I may be making a mistake here, but I'm confused. If you aren't concerned that the muslims in America are radical extremists, why are you worried that they're going to "take over"? What is the harm in peaceful, constitution-accepting muslims becoming a bigger group in the US?
I have friends who I consider pretty great who are atheists, so I'm with you here. And I'd be kind of ticked if they all had to move. I only know like ONE guy who is an atheist who I'd be okay with moving to Australia or somewhere, but that's because he's a jerk, not because he's an atheist. x]
...Well, I doubt that you actually support this, Joe, because it's obviously a horrible idea, so I'll argue the other points in the description. First of all, there have been plenty of wars waged by religious people. I seem to recall a hundred year long war taking place among pretty religious people. And what about the crusades? PEOPLE, not ATHEISTS, are capable of atrocities. Atheism is not the problem. Tell me how many atheists have made wars, and I'm pretty sure I can show you at least an equal number of religious people who have done the same thing. Also, how are "atheists" using up resources making war weaponry? The US makes weapons, and it is a country probably made up of more Christians than anyone else(I haven't looked at any statistics lately, but it's clear that we are not anything close to a nation solely of atheists).
Of course, this is Joe I'm talking to, so it's definitely a possibility that you're being sarcastic/mocking someone elses arguments about religious people/trying to piss people off. x]
Is there some similar debate that I haven't seen regarding religious people? 'Cause this kind of sounds like a response to attacks on religious people, but I could be wrong.
This makes me think of "Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead."
Joe, I think you will appreciate this monologue from that play:
Rosencrantz: Do you ever think of yourself as actually dead, lying in a box with the lid on it? Nor do I really. Silly to be depressed by it. I mean, one thinks of it like being alive in a box. One keeps forgetting to take into account that one is dead. Which should make all the difference. Shouldn't it? I mean, you’d never know you were in a box would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I’d like to sleep in a box, mind you. Not without any air. You'd wake up dead for a start and then where would you be? In a box. That's the bit I don't like, frankly. That’s why I don’t think of it. Because you'd be helpless wouldn't you? Stuffed in a box like that. I mean, you'd be in there forever. Even taking into account the fact that you're dead. It isn't a pleasant thought. Especially if you're dead, really. Ask yourself: if I asked you straight off I'm going to stuff you in this box now – would you rather to be alive or dead?
Naturally you’d prefer to be alive. Life in a box is better than no life at all. I expect. You'd have a chance at least. You could lie there thinking, well, at least I’m not dead. In a minute, somebody’s going to bang on the lid and tell me to come out. (knocks) "Hey you! What's your name? Come out of there!"
I'm leaning towards the fox side on this one, although I'm reluctant simply because I never watch Fox news, so for all I know there is good reason for the gov't to classify them as a "hate group"...However, I think it's wrong for a government to limit criticism of itself. Manipulating what news goes out is not good--all sides should be represented equally so that the people will not be lied to. I would prefer, of course, to have one or two completely unbiased news sources, but if we cannot have that, we should at least have both biases represented.
In theory, there is this mutation that can occur within a woman that causes immaculate conception. It hasn't been proven, but it's a possibility. Therefore, abstainance may not be 100% effective.
:D It makes me happy to throw that out there... for some reason. I need a life. x.x
Honestly...what makes the most sense is option 3. Then the government has nothing to do with religious/philosophical problems. They would be neutral, which is how it should be. Then whichever churches/ship captains/etc. are willing to marry gay people can do so, and those who don't want to don't have to(I'm sure people will be able to find a venue--there's enough support even in some churches that people can find someone to marry them. And they can always go to the courthouse if all else fails). Then gay people can be married, have equality before the law, and conservatives can still believe in their own definition of marriage. But mostly, it makes sense because the government stays neutral in what is a personal/religious/philosophical issue.
I defy anyone to come up with any damn good reason against option 3. :D
Here's my thing: I believe gay people should have the same rights as straight, but I do have a hard time relating to it being such a HUGE deal....I mean, as you've already said, they can still have ceremonies, and it seems kind of silly to have a huge battle over a tax deduction(as insensitive as that sounds). Yet I know it's not about that...it's about being seen as equal before the law. So I guess it does matter...it's just one of those things that can be seen from different angles. Basically, on both sides of the issue it's a matter of principal. Right side: We don't want you changing the definition of marriage/changing our society. Left side: We want to have our love be just as legit as theirs.
So...there are my thoughts on the subject. :) If anyone has any input, curse words, or clarifications, have at it.
I thought he was already dead too! x____x
So...apparently we're both insensitive, terrible people. :P I mean, not really. Except now I am.
I actually do care though. Just 'cause a part of me usually cares when someone dies.
Wow that was so deep. >_> (understand the sarcasm, please)
Hey. Kukla has physical problems, and she said she collects workers compensation. THAT'S why she can't work. You don't know her situation is, with her education or her job(neither do I, but I'm not the one making judgments). You don't know what part of the country she lives in and what the cost of living is there. Lay off of Kukla. I like her, and you can chew on my shoe. :) And yeah. I am 5 today. And I am A-Okay with that.
The problem with your argument is that the government doesn't ONLY decide how to use tax money. There are social issues, laws, etc. that have little or nothing to do with tax money. Yes, some do, but not all.
Also, this system only works if we have the rich paying more than the poor, which you are against I believe...let me know if I'm wrong, of course.
I agree. Many people have legitimate reasons for not having a job, and they absolutely still have a right to vote. I understand Joe's point about people who aren't working being able to get benefits from worker's money, but it's no excuse for such a huge rights infringement.
