Reason fails? Personal attack! (That means I win.):awesomelon:

...Duh? I never said anything about your involvement, I'm talking about war breaking out in the first place. They set up this international relations government with the intent of never letting anything like WW1 happening again, then america, the nation that devised it in the first place [well, wilson did] and the most powerful nation in the world never joined it. They left stopping the remilitarisation of Germany up to britain and france? France was half destroyed by the war and were to scared to do anything and then Chamberlain was far too trusting.

I mean, appeasment? When has that ever worked?

Anyway, my point was your country was partly responsible for the outbreak. NOT ENTIRELY before you all jump to idiotic conclusions, it was more Britain's/France's/Germany's/Italy's/Spain's fault but the US certainly did contribute in some ways.

A few points:

Oh please. By those standards life begins before conception seeing as eggs and sperm are no less alive. Why don't we go banning contraception, periods and masturbation? We're wasting all that life! Truth is you have to draw a line as to when you would call a foetus a baby, an individual. There's debate over that. Embryos that don't even have a nervous system are not human beings. Banning abortions at that early a stage is punishing the woman with a very real nervous system that feels pain and heartbreak in favour of the rights of an unfeeling potential human being. No one's saying there isn't a grey area but blanket bans is for absolutist idiots who only think in black and white.

What on earth did those criticisms say about nuclear power? Ron Paul wants to remove legislation designed to protect the environment because it hampers business and industry. The environment is exactly the kind of externality that isn't looked after by pure capitalism. It requires co-ordinated efforts to ensure its safety and well-being.

So what are those usual arguments? I've yet to see a single valid argument against it, except for people wanting to make their religious mores a law that everyone should run by. Gay marriage won't differ from state to state, geography doesn't affect it. Gay people in Georgia are just as gay as gay people in California and deserve the same rights; not having to suffer because they happen to be living amongst a higher proportion of bigots.

Isn't the First Amendment pretty much the separation of church and state? The treaty at Tripoli seems to clearly state that the US is not a Christian nation or a nation of any religion at all. Didn't Jefferson emphasise the importance of neither interfering with the other? Even if you disagree on that, don't you see why it's a good idea? Religion is one of those things that no one can agree on or reasonably debate with. Everyone's got different ideas about it and by it's very nature no one can show they're more right than another. The best solution for the government is surely to keep it's nose out of it and not allow itself to be controlled or influenced by one particular interpretation?
Anyway, finding me a single piece of research done by the folks at the Discovery Institute on Intelligent Design would be a good start in the case for teaching intelligent design as science in public schools. ID boils down to fundamentalist creationist wolf in sheep's clothing. If it were taught as science, not only would that mean that your government would therefore be taking a religious stance, but it'd also be completely factually wrong.
Perhaps a good read on why separation of church and state is a good idea comes from an evangelical called Gary Christenot in an article for WND (so this isn't a lefty blog) called "Why I'm against pre-game prayer"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=32839

You know what would be cool; is a theocracy.

A Buddhist theocracy.

Evolution is a scientific theory with over 150 years worth of evidence and research backing it up. Intelligent design is a religious philosophy, not science. It cannot be proven wrong and thus is not science and does not belong anywhere near a science class.

Careful, you know how those people like to spin things. Better to use something like "unfalsifiability" because generally those who don't believe in evolution also can't understand words with more than 2 syllables in them.

My bad

I ****ing hate the evolution argument, teach both and STFU. Wait, present two ideas and let our students choose? No wai! We MUST indoctrinate!

You mean like this?

Edit: jesus you're fast

No, don't teach both, not unless you also want them to teach astrology along with astronomy. If you don't like scientific theories, then stay the **** out of science courses, they're obviously not doing anything for you.

It's a professional opinion from years of experience. It gives him a bit more to go off of than what other Republicans have.

The important matter is to ensure that the rights of the unborn are guaranteed at whatever stage that it is widely agreed and established to have those rights.



He also wants to remove legislation and taxes that help restrict the development of new energy sources. He also favors offering incentives to those who ride a bike or a bus (heh).



While he does not intend to force states to recognize each other's definition of marriage, I think forbidding the federal government from banning same-sex marriage nationwide is a step in the positive direction.

Ideally, I think marriage of any form should not be influenced, positively or negatively, by the government.




Kinda depends on how you interpet "separation of church and state". Paul simply follows what is specifically written in the Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This boils down to 2 key points:
1. No religious group will be favored by the government.
2. Americans are free to exercise when and where they want.

It's not unreasonable at all to believe that forbidding religious exercises in public places (school, etc.) is unconstitutional.

Solution:
Offer evolution in a science class and religion in a religious studies class.

I don't see what's so complicated about this.

just to go back to the healthcare issue, why is it that nobody thinks that a system with socialized healthcare, but also priate healthcare available to those who can afford it, would be worth suggesting. That sort of system works well in Australia and many other nations as well.

To those who say that socialised healthcare will increase waiting times, I remind you that the people who would benefit ALREADY have to wait, and sometimes they dont wait because they are basicly told that they will not be able to get the treatment. With a combination of socialised and private healthcare systems, costs will be kept down, as the people with enough money will be able to pay for their own healthcare, which means that the government has less people to worry about in the socialized healthcare system.

It could be argued that if you do a competent job teaching the subjects, everyone will pick the right theory/system/whatever-you-call-it.

I think you're missing the point of the cartoon.

I see two problems with your arguments.

First, you assume that because I made the point, that I agree with it, when it should be clear that that is not necessarily the case.

Second, you attack the source of the argument, and not the argument itself, by insinuating that all those against gay marriage are bigots, and that pro-lifers are absolutist idiots.

All in all, the problem is your personal tone. Try writing with less emotion invested into it. Your audience will be more willing to consider the points you make.

Of course, you can always inject humor. That works too. As for the technical points of your argument, others have already addressed them, except one.

Saying that life begins before conception is Reductio Ad Absurdum. Conception is an event that combines two things to create something more than the sum of their parts. No one is saying anything about souls or such things, whether they believe in them or not, so please do not put words in my mouth. The scientific truth is that, at conception, the DNA from the sperm and egg combine, and transform the egg from a non-viable entity into one that, through mitosis, will grow into an embryo. Therefore, it is clear that conception is the earliest possible point at which an individual person can be created.
Now, the second branch of the argument. Lets assume one axiom first : That it is wrong to kill a person. This leads to the truthful statement, "If an embryo is a person, it is wrong to kill him." Now comes the ambiguity. If you do not know when an embryo becomes a person, then you do not know when it is wrong to kill the embryo. Therefor, you must assume it is always wrong to kill the embryo.

This disregards the main point I was making : You will never convince a real pro-lifer that the embryo is not a person, and thus that it is okay to kill it. You will also never convince a real pro-choicer that the embryo is a person, and thus that it is not okay to kill it. One of the biggest arguments is that only the woman has the right to decide what happens to that embryo. However, if that embryo is a person, this is clearly not the case. We would not stand by and allow a woman to beat her born children. If we do not draw a distinction between the born and un-born, then of course we would not stand by and allow her to kill her un-born child. In fact, we would have as much moral obligation to help that un-born child as we would a born child.

I was pointing out that your ability to reason, much like Ron Paul's, is retarded.

Well, first I'm not really sure that you can say it's better to presuppose that the universe is materialistic. Obviously which ever basis you start with will have a profound impact on how everything else pans out, but I don't understand how you can say one starting point is necessarily better than the other.

You'd have to be dense to say that evolution and it's development have not had a revolutionary impact on philosophy. It would also be dense to say that everyone can be totally unbiased about things which have an impact on their personal philosophy. For example, I don't believe in ghosts. I approach any claim that ghosts exist with a degree of extreme pessimism, because it does not fit into my own world view, or for that matter, any other world view that's even remotely consistent. But obviously that doesn't mean I'm wrong, it's just that it would just take a *whole lot* more evidence for me to accept, than, say, a method for working a calculus problem. That's the way everyone's brain works, it's not a fault, it's just part of our nature.

I'm just saying that based off of other externally preconceived notions, I'm erring on the side of a young rather than old earth.

Reasons being
a) I have not personally studied the hard science behind evolution, so I have no personal understanding for how truly reliable the system really is. Sure, it's presented well, but it's been been developed and is being argued by some of our best and brightest for a long time. They're not going to point out all the different ways different things could be interpreted differently because they are trying to present a coherent system. "Totally unbiased" is this case is another way of saying irrational. Raw information must be tied together with lines of reasoning.

With something impossible to observe and as complected as natural history, everything really has to be interpreted in light of an overarching theory. So, I'm not accusing anyone of intentionally trying to misrepresent the facts, I'm just saying I have not personally been able to assess the viability of the reasoning that ties them together, or the viability or lack there of of ID. And like a said before, the large a philosophical impact of a theory like this will muddy the waters further.

b) Secondly, there seems to be a reasonable amount of people with a much greater understanding of the subject than I who do not believe in evolution. While I grant that this could be because they are seeing what they want to see, it is somewhat remarkable that they have held on to these views in spite of a quite through education from an evolutionary viewpoint.

c) Not counting philosophical implications, it's not in any way relevant to me at all. Some of the principles that the theory entails may be relevant in some specialized engineering fields or geology, but not to me.

So, yes, I'm am biased toward a Creationist viewpoint, due to externally preconceived philosophical reasons, which would not change even if I did believe in evolution. That being said, I know that I'm ignorant on the subject so I'm sure as hell not going to go around arguing that Creationism is right. I'd love to study the issue more deeply, but right now, I just don't have the time.



Yeah, sure, but those are observable principals rather at work there. I doubt that an educated objector to evolution would disagree with any of those basic principles.



Again you're talking about something that most politicians have limited, or in Paul's case, an obsolete understanding of. It also has potentially deep implications in beliefs they have held for most of their lives. I don't see how it carries over into many other scenarios very well.



Things like science education he'd leave to the states. If was someone like Huckabee, I can see why you worry. Evolution really doesn't have much of a bearing on stem cell research. Again, he's not being appointed to the chair of the scientific grants appropriations committee, he's being elected president. Any issue you might have with him not believing in evolution could probably be considered trivial enough compared to his overall policy.



All good points, but I think you have to agree that a fetus is definitely an organism, which is developing into a human. Where you want to actually draw that line is sticky business, and I think there is something to be said for erring on the side of conception, all other issues aside.

You do know the japanese attacked because we were selling weapons to both sides and jacking the prices, right?


We may have only been half-*** participating, but we were still participating.

Ad Hominem.

When do you try out for the cheerleading squad?

Well, by that logic there were a lot of countries participating. I would be more concerned with direct responsibility than indirect.

As for gay marriage... You really can't make a better argument against it than Sweden.

Cry more.

Everytime you do that, I win a little more.

Oh sure, but only because you say so mister internet spiritualist man.

Concession accepted.

I didn't order any popcorn, you jerk.

Even the people here who think I'm some sort of 'taochristian nut' give me more respect than they give you. Read the writing on the wall.

The "wall" = the proscription list, right?

And I'm sure all the pretty girls get in a big long line just to fluff your "pillow."

Actually, the instance I was thinking specifically of was your post a bit ago. But the ban list works too. I'm only on it because of incidents of failed sarcasm meters.

You'er first failure was taking Rob seriously then trying to argue with him. It's actually pretty funny from where I'm sitting.

Ron Paul supporter debate tactics:

1. repeat the same things over and over again without bothering to refute opposing viewpoints
2. wait until opposition inevitably gets tired of this and leaves/starts calling people names/whatever
3. proclaim victory

But I didn't argue with him. I just refuted that article then he ad-hommed me. :/

Captain Obvious to the rescue!



That's exactly what you did.

; ;

/me feels ignored even though I made a post that was discussing politics and not attacking someone.

If you want to get noticed, you have to start flaming.

I'm assuming you haven't been following this thread. If you'll take the time to read it, it's quite obvious that the anti-Paul individuals are clinging to #1 very well.

Huh what?