I would like to open my own debate on abortion. The only rule: NO ATTACKING OTHER PEOPLE PLEASE!
I would actually like to know why people think what they do. And I may at times ask you to explain further or throw in a counterpoint, but in the end I simply would like to hear from you. Thanks for reading, and I hope engaging in the discussion. Good night all, I hope to return to many opinions, but will understand if there are not.

*Yugi Voice*

Rejected!

i thought we already had one, lets change this to something cool like the death penalty or growing mustaches

I wish I could grow a mustache, but it always comes out Fu Man Chu style.

True, but as we found yesterday I and others are not welcome in that debate. And rather than reduce a truly interesting and open discussion into arguement I choose to bow out. After all it wasn't my topic. This one is. Still...Can't say how I feel about the death penalty really...It goes against much of what I believe in, the possibility of change inert in all of us. And yet, do the majority of the violent criminal element change? I would usually only advocate deadly consequences in defense rather than in cold blood after the fact. Feel free to discuss your own opinon, who knows? Through it you or I may say"I never thought of that way..."
And mustaches? Hmmm... Generally a mustache by itself kinda seems funny to me, but I also do care for full beards(Not because of the look, but because of the scratchiness). My favorite look on men is the mustached/goatee combo. My eye is always drawn to a man with such a style.

I am generally against the death penalty. I think it's an easy way out. I prefer the idea of life enslavery.

::Cough:: Delicate aren't we ? Yeah, it is easy to kill someone and it is irreversiable. However, to play to Devil's Advocate: Should society support a lifer in prison? Money that could perhaps be better spent in education, or medical care, or something?

Good question. How about we let them fend for themselves?

Either;
A. Make them grow and harvest their own food or
B. Survivor them, trap them on a desert island, and shoot anyone that tries to flee.

Very "Escape from New York". I dunno, though I suppose a lifer can work like others do and simply have most of it go to the government...Wait...OMG we're all lifers to the government!

Welcome to the system.

On a different note, Can a topic's title be changed, to say Open Debate? Probably not huh? Ah well. Invitation open, heck I just like to hear what other people have to say. Tackle all the issues, be my guest.
Seriously though, love my daughter as I do, I wouldn't want to be her sole support for life. I definitely don't want to support a violent criminal for life either...thoughts??

Do they same thing to your daughter as you would to a criminal. Kick them out and left them fend for themselves.

Touche.

Ooh, this guy knows french, don't fuck with him.

Ahem, I am a girl, thank you much. My husband has yet to deign to post on the site.

My apologisa. My wit is dying rapidly with the onset of sleep requirements.

Oh that...Sleep is a luxury a mother of an almost two year old no longer recognizes. See ya later!

Oh, I now know pity.

What do you mean you and others? You're the only person that was asked to leave; and that was your own fault.

Hehehe... so now the original argument returns to haunt us all... how deliciously ironic.

how about keeping it to one topic guys and gals

uhm... lack of attention span?

Oooh, mama brought home some provolone cheese!!
Er, what's going on?

You are welcome to add your opinion of the topic, all. However it was suggested by previous posts that this thread was not needed as there was another of similar topic. So, alternate topic was suggested and run with.
By the way, Rae-Rae, just curious...I saw one of your posts in the other thread. Is over-population an excuse for murder? It seems so heartless...like the future worlds where anyone over a certain age is killed to help control population.

Also, soylent greentastic(cannibal), I have followed your thread since. I only agreed not to post out of respect that you started that topic. And I never said anyone was asked to leave only that they weren't welcome if they didn't agree with you. However if you would like to reply to me here: Read the only rule above, I do not wish this post to devolve into non-factual insults like idiot or lacking the intelligence to converse. And as the technical definition of idiot is someone with a certain lower IQ than normal, your statement was in fact opinion which you seem to decry.

I would also like to apologize for not being available to speak with those who posted last night. I was at hospital with my husband visiting his mother who collapsed yesterday for an as of yet undermined reason. I should be on later tonight after my daughter goes down for the night. Later all.

Finally soylent, to speak to your apparent true bias:Rationality vs. Faith which has nothing to do with the topic you proposed. You claim rationality is better than faith because it is supported by facts. I would like to examine this here and now. Science is fact is based on hypothesis, an educated guess. When, and only when, a scientific THEORY is proven to be true in each and EVERY experiment performed can it be labeled scientific fact. And even then can be challegened by other scientists who believe that the first's attempts were flawed. Which is why what most people accept as scientific fact is in FACT labeled by the scientists themselves as THEORY. And a theory is an opinion. A opinion, no matter how well thought out and rationalized is still just an opinion. If you want proof of the scientific community's perchant for opinion, look to how often food changes from bad to good depending on who is talking and the relevance of newer studies.

Also, in Calculas, in high school I might add, my teacher explained to us a rather interesting scientific theory and unfortunately, due to the fact I haven't been in high school for the last ten years, I don't remember its name. What I do remember is the theory, because it truly made an impression with its absurdity. The theory goes like this: Because you can repeatedly half the distance between any two objects into infinity, nothing can ever truly touch, it will never reached the 0 point of contact. We were introduced to this theory by our teacher throwing a ball at the wall and hearing it hit and seeing it recoil. Obviously the theory is not scientific fact as it is disproved constantly in our daily life Now, try to wrap your mind around this: Over time thinking about this seeming ridiculas theory, I have come to the conclusion both commonsense and science theory have the potential to be correct. Commonsense as was just outlined above says the theory is obviously incorrect. Science on a more meta-physical level could make a case for its theory. Humans, plants, rocks, the very air we breathe is all made up of increasing smaller particles, extending to atomic, sub-atomic and beyond. At these much reduced levels, there exists a kind of polar magnetism where in fact parts do not touch but rather orbit one another. And indeed if we but see ourselves as these particles we do never touch. Which is the correct answer? Or is there room for both? This is why I say Rationality based on science is like any other opinion, fluid and open to change.

=\ Actually that theory is correct. You have to think at subatomic levels. Atoms aren't really tiny little balls, it's near impossible for us to imagine them the way they are. Even if you can push subatomic particles into the same space, their wave-form properties prevent them from ever actualy colliding. Touch is an illusion; it only "exists" on macro-scales.

And theory and opinion aren't the same thing. Due to the unceartainty principle, we will never know everything about everything. That's patently absurd, the only people that make the claim of absolute knowledge are religious folk. In science, a fact is any observeration. Gravity, in the sense that objects attract eachother (like a ball falling to the earth), is a fact. A theory is a set of rules or laws set to describe a fact ("gravity is a subatomic basic force that causes objects to fall towards eachother at a rate that increases exponentially with size, due to space-time geodiscs") is a theory that describes the observed fact of gravity. The best we can ever do for minute extrapolations of causes )such as the exact numerically expressed strength of gravity or length of a string) are very, very close approximations, yet again due to the unceratinty principle. Oppinions are relative and qualitive, theories are neither. (This does not apply to baseic observed facts about the world "Thoughts can't exist without a neuron net to support them" is an observed fact.) It's hardly the scientific community's fault that we have people like you running around and warping definitiions =\; nor is it their fault that people lookover sources.


Furthermore, the strength of science lies in its doctrine of being refutable, of allowing opposing RATIONAL viewpoints and shifting if new, hard evidence is promoted. Do you realize how insane it is that you're claiming science is WEAK because it allows for change and opposes dogmatic resistance to evidence that contrasts with accepted ideas?

I say we do like in apocalypto and chase convicts through a forest and anyone who makes it out is free to go, best part is there is a cliff at the end. Just think of how much better it would be than regular tv? now, while on the subject of video-taping human suffering, I say that illegal immigration should be an obstical course with the winner getting to stay for a year.

Ok, now thats out of the way, I shall reconcile science and God in a few sentences:
Science cannot disprove god. I believe that a god exists and that Jesus was his son, to me I find it extremely illogical to think that our universe is a random chance, I mean, the laws of physics couldnt just pop out from nowhere, it just dont make no sense. Also, what is so bad about using rationality on some issues and faith on others, logic works for many things and faith works for others, people cannot determine what happens after death so we use faith and religions to help answer for us.

I heard that on nationstates...

well, then i'm not the only one who thinks its a good idea, btw, what is nationstates?

www.nationstates.net

we did it for school once. It's kinda fun.

ooh new hobby, nationstates, I love being a tyrant

I wondered where this argument wandered off to...



When did she claim that? She said that science doesn't have all the answers. It don't.

Regardless, just because you think that science is more rational (which I by no means accept), doesn't mean you can viably claim that faith is inferior. The two of them, in my oh so humble opinion, can only be looked at as equal.

Precisely. I did not say science was WEAK as you put it. I said that anything is open to change and interpretation. Many of my own science mentors have opened class with the statement that the importance is not is how you get the right answer, merely that you do get it. I do not know what your educational forum may be, but I count myself fortunate to have teachers who wanted us to think, to question, to gain awareness and not merely speak from rote. It is this very freedom of thought by which I can to believe in my religion and if you do not, it simply does not bother me. I despise stooping to your level of inflammatory speech and ranting. However, rationality does not support free thought, free will or free anything.
Many of this country's strengths are based on entirely irrational ideals, so I say if you hate opinion for the sake of opinion, if you hate all that which is not proof in front of you, then you hate the very things that allow you to make those statements. Many of our "Rights" including free speech and the only true rights of "Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of happiness" are based on the irrational ideals that a government of men, many of them religious took from the rights bestowed by God. Who is the only figure in any form of government who granted his people the only strength we as humans have:Free will, choice. And who are you to say when someone else's choices are wrong? You are the one who cannot debate. You have yet to defend your positions with any facts. You have merely attacked faith. A debatist, I was taught by my debate team, must state a position and defend it, using examples and being thorough and clear. Personal attacks do not make a debate. I say my or any other opinion on your or any other thread here is inviolate as our nation's ideals demand that we have that right to speak. You don't have to agree, that's is the beauty of it. Nor do you or anyone else have to tolerate censorship because someone else does not see the world the way you do.

I don't get really nice facial hair.

=/ Then again, the men in my family aren't known for it.

Then again, I'm only 15.

Just give it time. Hey, as a plus, even you never get facial hair, you'll never have to deal with "women's issues" Sometimes I think God really hated us.

He dont like it when ya messin round with his apples

So true, so true..."The serpant made me do it!"

Sigh... It's time to make it right. As Hawk so adequately put it earlier"Stick to the topic guys and gals"
So, once again, open invite to all opinions on abortion.

And lest you think I too have fallen to insulting other posters...
The comment cannibal was a reference to a movie I believe Soylent Greentastic took his handle from.
Don't remember the title but the basic premise was a future world with rampant overpopulation and a shortage of food. "Soylent Green is people too!" See they had Soylent Red and Soylent Blue, and Soylent Green was made from Dead People, hence the cannibal ref. If I am wrong, I apologize.