Comments Posted By brooks
Displaying 31 To 39 Of 39 Comments
Mark30339:
Thanks, sometimes I'm slow when it comes to subtext. ;) And good point.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 20:16
Damn, sloppy post. Is my face red.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 19:15
Now, I'm certain Rick can speak for himself, when and if it suits him. It's patently obvious (at least to me) that nobody's going to convince you of anything if you accept at face value "the Bible says it so it must be true." Break that argument down, and you've got "it's true because it's true," and it doesn't take much brainpower to see why that doesn't go anywhere. But if I wanted a "just because" argument for truth, thanks but no thanks -- I'll just become 10 years old again and ask my parents.
The genetic factor, even though it has zero scientific evidence to support it, is not valid reasoning for any particular behavior. It may help explain, but it does not exempt the individual from responsibility.
Now, I'm certain Rick can speak for himself, when and if it suits him. It's patently obvious (at least to me) that nobody's going to convince you of anything if you accept at face value "the Bible says it so it must be true." Break that argument down, and you've got "it's true because it's true," and it doesn't take much brainpower to see why that doesn't go anywhere. But if I wanted a "just because" argument for truth, thanks but no thanks -- I'll just become 10 years old again and ask my parents.
thinker from seattle:
The genetic factor, even though it has zero scientific evidence to support it, is not valid reasoning for any particular behavior. It may help explain, but it does not exempt the individual from responsibility.
I'm not so sure there's no genetic evidence for homosexuality. There's definitely neurological evidence. Besides, same-sex behavior of all kinds occurs in other animals, from insects to mammals. Are you somehow arguing here that's it's "unnatural"? if so, the evidence is not on your side.
And, granted, thinker, none of this would "exempt the individual from responsibility"; but responsibility for what? You seem to be assuming that homosexual is morally problematic from the get-go. Where's your evidence? Why the assumption?
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 19:14
Er, I intended to say: "Christianity is a collection of ideas" in the third paragraph. But you get my drift.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 16:45
Mark30339:
On the contrary, I think Rick's "discrimination" here is terribly "balanced"; he hasn't said to string up any Christians, to kick out Christian politicians, to hold Christians to different standards than everyone else. You're fine believing your Jewish folk stories, just don't act like the rest of us are bound to lend them any credulity.
We're all big boys and girls, and I think the use of reason to solve our problems is eminently fair -- everyone has access to it, and if you choose not to exercise your intellectual powers of discrimination, so much the worse for you (and unfortunately, often for the rest of us, too).
Ideas are ideas are ideas. Some match the real world, some don't, and so they will have greater or lesser practical value. Religion is a collection of ideas -- some better, some worse -- just as is the case with all religions. Why should we be inclined to support this or that kooky idea, just because your church happens to endorse it? it should be evaluated on its actual merits to individuals and society, just as any other meme.
How the hell would giving homosexuals right to marriage lead to "anarchy," besides from folks such as yourselves who simply disagree 'cause their holy book says to do so? There are so many children in the system who need families, and plenty of folks willing to adopt whose only 'fault' is that they're attracted to members of the same sex. If you're going to claim that this is somehow wrong, you're really going to have to provide actual evidence, and not just the purported sayings of an ancient Judean sky-god.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 16:33
Mary W:
What a penchant for hyperbole you have there! "Cesspool," "Europe," and "Marx," all in the same sentence, and not one factual claim to get in the way.
Chuck T:
Personally, I like the Libertarians, but they are far too disorganized right now for my druthers. A lot of what the fiscal conservatives say makes sense to me; I just don't want the Republican party trying to shrink down government small enough to fit in my bedroom, as someone said recently.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 12:36
...they don’t want to take over your life, or change the way you think or act. they value and protect life period. that’s where they stand.
So you speak for some several million people, do you? Presumptuous, much? I was raised Assembly of God. There are indeed many within that particular movement who want to do just that.
And, please: "value and protect life period". How many tens of thousands of unfortunate Iraqi civilians have died in the past few years? How many "developmentally disabled" convicts have been juiced? And note, these are real people, not undifferentiated embryos.
Life started ~4bln years ago. That's when life began. When does a human person begin? Somewhere between 0 and 9 months, and probably closer to the latter than the former. I'll reserve my respect for life to beings with a brain and nervous system, thank you very much.
I personally disagree with Rick quite a bit on other subjects, but whatever he says, at least the man's unafraid to take a rational stance, which is more than I can say for many others, Left or Right.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 09:49
Hear, hear!
If there was any one thing in particular that has soured me on the GOP, it is the pandering to the Moral Majority, so-called (well, that and related oddities, like Newt Gingrich lecturing us on the sacredness of marriage).
There isn’t a god but if there was, it would seem to me that he would want us earthlings to use all of our faculties, all of our experience and learning, all the cumulative knowledge built up over thousands of years of human civilization in order to get the most out of life.
Thanks, Rick. This is why I read RWNH.
Comment Posted By brooks On 14.09.2008 @ 02:35
SOMEBODY THROW THE DEMOCRATS A LIFE PRESERVER
You forgot to correct this:
They have been replaced by articles about how Sarah Palin is lying when she says she fought the "Bridge to Nowhere" which actually was a "Bridge to Somewhere" – specifically an island with 7,500 inhabitants.
The bridge to Nowhere (Gravina Island, pop. 50) would have crossed the channel to Somewhere (Ketchikan, pop. 7500). Put that way, we can see why it was called the Bridge to Nowhere.
(And yes, both Biden and Obama voted for funding it at the time. I'm just sayin'.)
Comment Posted By brooks On 10.09.2008 @ 13:45
