QueenZone discussion #977620

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: I agree with Music Man... Of course, she's the type of person who is convinced everything she says is right, and I couldn't even get half of my thoughts said.

joxerthepanties-salesman wrote:

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: I agree with Music Man... Of course, she's the type of person who is convinced everything she says is right, and I couldn't even get half of my thoughts said.

thats just women being women {im gonna get SOOOOO many mental slaps for that}

joxerthepanties-salesman wrote:

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: I agree with Music Man... Of course, she's the type of person who is convinced everything she says is right, and I couldn't even get half of my thoughts said.

thats just women being women {im gonna get SOOOOO many mental slaps for that}

Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote:

joxerthepanties-salesman wrote:

<font color=lime>KillerQueen840 wrote: I agree with Music Man... Of course, she's the type of person who is convinced everything she says is right, and I couldn't even get half of my thoughts said.

thats just women being women {im gonna get SOOOOO many mental slaps for that}

Ha ha! Luckily I'm not the type that will get offended with kind of statement. But in my defense, not all women are like that. Although I do know alot of females who behave that way.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Polls are never a dependable place to base worries off of. I don't find this alarming or cause for concern at all.

<font color=660066>Pomponias Marrion wrote: Let people think what they want to think.

Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Polls are never a dependable place to base worries off of. I don't find this alarming or cause for concern at all.

Is this the Music Man that I know when I used to post on queenzone, or a different one?

<font color=Mercury>Larry Lurex's Girl wrote: In my opinion, Americans are dumb and Aussies are smart

Zebonka12 wrote:

<font color=660066>Pomponias Marrion wrote: Let people think what they want to think.

Yeah. Who needs logic? Sure! Let's ignore something that actually happens every time we breed (ever notice how people are living longer, getting taller, things like that?). Believing in God is fine, but I'm sick of pandering to fanatical nitwits in other countries that want to start teaching Creationism in the schools where I live. I'm also sick of calling evolution a 'theory' just to keep said nitwits happy. Belief in a deity or deities does not preclude a bit of common sense, surprisingly. Why can't it be a case of God 'starting' evolution or whatever, as opposed to God making the earth 4000 years ago and simply making hundred-million-year old fossils just to poke fun at us? link Freedom of belief is almost 100% a good idea. However, when it comes to Creationism or Scientology (as if anyone actually believes that shit) we really ought to do our best to excise it from the public consciousness.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Zebonka12 wrote:

<font color=660066>Pomponias Marrion wrote: Let people think what they want to think.

Yeah. Who needs logic? Sure! Let's ignore something that actually happens every time we breed (ever notice how people are living longer, getting taller, things like that?). Believing in God is fine, but I'm sick of pandering to fanatical nitwits in other countries that want to start teaching Creationism in the schools where I live. I'm also sick of calling evolution a 'theory' just to keep said nitwits happy. Belief in a deity or deities does not preclude a bit of common sense, surprisingly. Why can't it be a case of God 'starting' evolution or whatever, as opposed to God making the earth 4000 years ago and simply making hundred-million-year old fossils just to poke fun at us? link Freedom of belief is almost 100% a good idea. However, when it comes to Creationism or Scientology (as if anyone actually believes that shit) we really ought to do our best to excise it from the public consciousness.

As long as a contrasting opinion is possible, there will be a person who holds it. I absolutely believe in a person's freedom to believe what he wants, and I am absolutely against the intentional or willful excisement of ANY belief that does not infringe upon the basic rights of others. To clarify, there is no inalienable right to not hear others' opinions. So Christians, Scientologists, and even Satan worshippers are all here to stay, and we all just need to bear with it. It would very much sadden me to see people enforce their ideals of a "good society" on others, even if that society is entirely bereft of political fanatics and religious zealots. A free society is the best society.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Polls are never a dependable place to base worries off of. I don't find this alarming or cause for concern at all.

Is this the Music Man that I know when I used to post on queenzone, or a different one?

Did I say something incredibly uncharacteristic of me, or are you just curious? Either way, yes.

Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

Yogurt<br><font size=1>The Artist wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Polls are never a dependable place to base worries off of. I don't find this alarming or cause for concern at all.

Is this the Music Man that I know when I used to post on queenzone, or a different one?

Did I say something incredibly uncharacteristic of me, or are you just curious? Either way, yes.

Oh Sorry. Just curious... Cause I noticed there were 2 Music Mans in QZ and I didn't know which was which.

Zebonka12 wrote: All true.... but I think if we (over a generation or two) stamp out Creationism and ridicule it heaps, it'll cut down conversation time at a phenomenal rate. I just can't stand arguing with people about it anymore. There are plenty of valid debates on can have over God 'n' what it has or hasn't done, what can and can't be proven... but Creationism officially lost the argument well over a century ago. Time to move on!

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: That was a joke, MusicMan I do agree with you

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: World peace vs. conformity?

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again. But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory. It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again. But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory. It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet.

Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations. I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals." When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again. But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory. It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet.

Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations. I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals." When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.

But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY. I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not.

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again. But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory. It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet.

Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations. I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals." When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.

But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY. I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not.

But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A. I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word. Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote:

<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Bush is out in 2008....he's hit his term limit, so it's not a question of people voting for him again. But yes, unfortunately most Americans do not think that a person can have a good moral value system unless they are religious, because in our society we've relegated moral teachings to the church. So, if you don't have religion, you can't be moral. That's the theory. It's a load of crap, but it's a theory. But then again, Puritans and refugees of religious persecution settled this country, which has a very strong Protestant backbone to it. I don't see Americans coming to accept secularization for at least a few hundred years yet.

Americans aren't so stupid, I don't believe. Every person is completely rational, and we only differ in the ways we rationalize things, and how easily we are swayed by particular rationalizations. I think the theory would be, "If candidate A were a good Christian, then he would have good morals," rather than, "If candidate B were non-religious, he would lack morals." When rationalized a particular way, that makes sense, and I could easily see someone thinking like that.

But the American people aren't blind, either. The theory of "If person A is a good Christian, they'll have good morals" has been disproved time and time again, in front of the American public (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Baker, Bernard Law are just three examples I can think of), and while most Americans will rightly say after the fact "That person wasn't a good Christian" they never manage to put A and B together. They tend as a general rule to accept Christians as being an absolute good, unless proven otherwise. Now, take a secular person or atheist or example. The assumption there is "That person is a bad person, until proven otherwise, and it takes a hell of a lot of proof to tip the scale." I'm not saying we should disbelieve all Christians, or Idolize the secular people. But, we should judge them all on the same scale. In the same way that religious people can be evil, secular people can be good, and people should accept that without shifting the burden of proof to the secularists. The burden of proof should be shared by all, and EQUALLY. I agree to a certain extent that a person is rational, but I'd argue that there are some who are farther out there than others. But America isn't a society of "persons"...much as we tout individualism. The Power of Pursuasion has a strong hold here...and everyone wants to be in the majority. A person can be logical, but "people" are not.

But that's the thing, if a candidate A is Christian, then that means he should presumably have the same, if not similar, morals to voter A. I mean, you can even see the opposite happening ever so clearly now. There is a common belief that devout Christians cannot be good politicians among many leftist voters. Even a few red flags are raised in MY brain when I hear the C-word. Morality is often times different and subjective. Politics is often based directly on morality. Therefore, we strive to pick the candidates whom we can best identify with morally.

Politics based on morality. I'll admit that's the benchmark, and it's a good theory. But one doesn't have to look too hard to see the fact that once the politicians get elected, morals have a strong tendency to go out the window. I keep wondering if the American public will ever wake up to that fact. We're like a dog that keeps getting fooled by the master who pretends to throw a stick. I keep hoping eventually the dog will wake up to the fact that he

CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Caspar, forgive me if I'm wrong here, but ALL systems of government are flawed. They are the results of human beings, who are flawed. Therefore, it would be awful difficult for a group of flawed things to come up with a perfect system of anything. The object is to find the system that strikes the best balance for the people, not to eliminate the flaws. You bring up good points (though nothing original, Tocquville came up with all those ideas first) but....The Netherlands are a consitutional monarchy, am I right? Granted you have a multi-party system, but that doesn't stop you guys from having just as many problems as we in the US do. Why in the world are you so anti-American?