|
Post by molotov889 on Apr 2, 2004 0:11:26 GMT -5
Well, to be fair, they WERE under the rule of a murderous tyrant. The US, on the other hand, just didn't want to pay its taxes; in many ways, we were like a rebellious teenager wanting liberty from its parents, and using any excuse possible. Plus, even though Bush's administration may have wanted to pretend that we were there to find Bin Laden, I think that even they've admitted by now that has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. That one's all about oil. (And Bush getting back at the man who tried to kill his daddy.)
|
|
|
Post by Joseph on Apr 2, 2004 0:22:17 GMT -5
War, in my honest (and not very nice) opinion, is the stupidest concept ever, and I absolutely 100% DO NOT support it at all whatsoever. The senseless killing of people is no way to go about solving problems. You can't justify war. I don't care why the war started; it's still wrong. Let's say that Country A approves of war, and Country B does not approve of war. Country A can stomp Country B's butt and take their land and resources, while Country B just sits there. There's a time for war, and there's a time for peace. However, I think the only people that should go to war are the people who choose to ahead of time. I know that's not the way it is in Europe, but I think here our gigantic army is big enough without the draft. But, everyone I hear who is for or against censorship all say "THink of the children" they can bite.... Er, uh, yeah. I prefer to encourage a sense of decency. When I turn on the TV, I don't wanna watch stupid junk. American TV needs to have higher standards because it is coming into the home of every American. I'm not saying that TV shouldn't have some action and thrills, it's just there's a point where it gets disgusting. I totally approve of the FCC's children's programming requirements. Nothing has signaled a bigger victory for the minds of children. My parents are members of the Parent's Television Council, and MasterMedia International, two organizations dedicated to decent standards in television. I also hope to become a member of these types of organizations when I get older. It's not that they're against television and movies-- media can actually be really good formats when put to good use. Having said all this, you might be able to infer my view of gay marriage. Like they say, people can disagree without being disagreeable.
|
|
|
Post by molotov889 on Apr 2, 2004 1:35:35 GMT -5
Having said all this, you might be able to infer my view of gay marriage. Like they say, people can disagree without being disagreeable. <RANT> The thing you have to remember about gay marriage, though, is that it affects people in a very profound way. MUCH more profoundly than, say, decency on television. I disagree with the censorship as well, not because I feel a great need for "dirty" tv or movies, but because I feel it is the right of the media to express themselves freely. I think that as long as it has a warning of some kind attached to it, then nothing should be censored. The responsibility is then on the parents to control what their children watch (as it should be) rather than for a government agency to control what we ALL watch. This is also why I disagree with the lawsuits against McDonald's and other fast food companies. Parents are putting their kids out in the public, saying they got overweight because the fast food chains didn't tell them their kids would get fat if they let them eat 5 Big Macs a day. I don't think that's the company's responsibility. (Not to mention how obvious it should be that fast food is unhelathy).They are not the caretaker of the child. It is the parents' responsibility to watch after their children and their habits and to be the ones who are informed and in control. But back to the gay marriage issue... This, I feel more strongly about because it is a direct attack on a minority group to deny them freedoms that the majority has. Granted, this isn't as serious of an issue as the civil rights movement, but the principle is the same. I thought we had learned that seperate but equal does not amount to total equality amongst people in the nation. I would actually be interested in finding out how many of those who want to ban gay marriage on the basis of "preserving the sanctity of marriage" are religious people and how many are not. It seems to me that this is, largely, a debate of enforcing a religious ideal upon the rest of America. It would then stand to reason that the majority of those supporting the ban are religious. However, the debate is not over forcing the church to accept and allow gay marriages. It is over the STATE adminstering the marriages. To me, the sanctity comes in the ceremony that takes places within a church, since the motivating idea there is to present the two beings as one before god. This just isn't the case with a state-instituted marriage, so there really is no "sanctity" being breached. Besides, what others do in their marriage does not cheapen yours. If that is the case, then perhaps the entire institution of marriage needs to be reworked since it's SUPPOSED to be a much more personal relationship. Also, if others' actions in marriage cheapen the meaning of your personal relationship with your spouse, how is it that gay marriage makes yours less meaningful, but failed, straight marriages that end up in divorce don't? Again, I think this all boils down to a lot of religious fanaticism, and having a conservative president in office right now is fanning the flames on this issue. I'm not saying we need a radically unconservative leader, I just wish we had one who actually sat down and thought things through thought- EVER. And Joseph- If I've incorrectly inferred your views, then I apologize. I still enjoyed making my little argument, though, and thank you for the inspiration. So if that's the case, just pretend, I'm ranting to the air... which you might want to do anyway. ;D </RANT>
|
|
|
Post by molotov889 on Apr 2, 2004 2:01:38 GMT -5
Let's say that Country A approves of war, and Country B does not approve of war. Country A can stomp Country B's butt and take their land and resources, while Country B just sits there. There's a time for war, and there's a time for peace. However, I think the only people that should go to war are the people who choose to ahead of time. I know that's not the way it is in Europe, but I think here our gigantic army is big enough without the draft. I think what Mystical_Sand was trying to get at was more of an idyllic view of the world at peace. As in Country A dissaproves of war, as does Country B, as do all the rest of the countries. This, I know, is an unrealistic veiwpoint. Especially for our country who a) is ultra paranoid and b) has too many enemies right now to count. However, there is a concept I'd like to bring up. Going to war is never really a guaranteed victory. There is always risk. Even if there's not identifiable risk for the country as a whole, there's a risk that every soldier has to face. That risking, or course, being dying in battle. So, being a warring nation, nation A in your scenario is always at risk of losing lives and valuable resources. You might say at this point, "yeah, but what if country A is like the US- we've got so many resources and so many soldiers that what would be major loses to other armies are minor to us." There are three problems with that : a) As we've seen with Iraq, even an army that can be easily defeated in the major battles can still prolong a war for a VERY long time and slowly eat away at troops and resources. b) Although troops and resources are large, they're still not infinite. Everything has a limit. c) The lives of troops should not be weighed the same as resources. They are human beings, and even the loss of 1 soldier is as bad as losing 1,000. Human life cannot have a value put on it. Now, going back to the risk assesment. It is clear that Country B obviously runs the risk of being invaded every day. However, if Country A risks that which I mentioned above, are they really risking anything less than Country B? Both are risking lives and resources, and in the end, they will probably end up with equal loses. Plus, if the aim of the world as a whole is to achieve peace at some point in the future (as embodied by the UN, NATO, etc...), there will have to be some risks involved, and in achieving this (ultimate) goal, we have to be able to accept those risks. Thus, neither Country A nor Country B really profits from the war or gains anything on the other. With the war, the goal of peace is simply pushed farther back.
|
|
|
Post by Mystical Sand on Apr 2, 2004 12:43:31 GMT -5
Thanks, Molotov, for explaining it better than I managed to! ^^; You're right - I was talking more in an ideal sense; I have no confidence in the thought that it might ever actually happen that way. It's nice to hope, though. I think I've narrowed down the actual reason I dislike Bush so strongly: he seems to be using his power as President to try to force his own biased opinions on the rest of us (which I can't stand X . X). HE thinks that gay marriage is wrong, so it must be banned. HE thinks that oil is so important that we have to go to _WAR_ over it. We are fighting over a liquid. *can't see the point*Well... nevermind, I won't say that. I suppose it has some semblance of a point. On the one hand, if we want to keep living our lives the way we do these days, we need oil, just because of the sheer amount of distance-travelling everyone seems to do. If we didn't have this little war, apparently we'd have to change our lifestyles quite a bit. Oh no. *cough* My science class was talking about that whole McDonald's-lawsuit thing just the other day. It stands to reason that if you're going to eat a bunch of greasy food, it's not going to have a very positive effect on you. If you subsist on fast food, you're probably not going to be healthy. The same thing would happen if you ate nothing but Burger King or Wendy's! I don't understand how they can blame McDonald's for something that THEY bought and put into THEIR mouths. It's not like McDonald's force-feed people those burgers of theirs! It's a conscious decision on the part of the consumer, and they should be prepared to face the consequences of their own actions. I think that as long as it has a warning of some kind attached to it, then nothing should be censored. The responsibility is then on the parents to control what their children watch (as it should be) rather than for a government agency to control what we ALL watch. That's it, too. Why should we all have to have our television/radio censored just because people can't be responsible for themselves? And - and this is probably going to make some of you guys mad, but it IS my honest opinion - I think that trying to protect kids is kind of futile. Some way or another, they are eventually going to get "corrupted" by the media, or by their peers who were less-protected than them... I'm not saying to intentionally expose them to all kinds of "bad" stuff. I'm saying that you can't protect their childish innocence forever. And trying to do so can actually cause more harm than help. Think about it: you go through all this trouble protecting your kid, and then they head off to school and find out all about drugs, and sex, and violence, and what-have-you from their friends. And then they come home to YOU, looking for explanations. So either way, they're going to get "corrupted". What happened to me was: I was on the bus one day, in fourth grade (so I was, say, 8 or 9 years old), and one of my (same-aged) neighbors was talking about abortions, and was telling everyone all this stuff about how they are carried out. And we asked her how she knew all this, and she said that her PARENTS told her. They told her, she told me, I went home and asked Mom and Dad, and they had a coniption fit. Point being, they tried to protect my innocent little mind, just to have it all go to waste when I headed off to school every day. - . -; And now look at me. *raises an eyebrow* ...I'm going to save my abortion rant for another day, methinks. And the reason I had "bad" in quotes above is because... well, seriously? I can see why violence is bad. I can MAYBE see why swearing is bad (even though you hear it everywhere you go - . -; ). But why is nudity so "bad"? I am being totally serious. We're born nude. We're not born with clothes on. I think I speak for the majority when I say that almost all of us have pictures our parents have taken of us as little kids when we were running around with no clothes on (if only to later embarass us with them when boyfriends/girlfriends come to call). And yet, the older you get, the more it's enforced that nudity is "bad". If you catch someone while they're taking a shower, it's like, "AGH I HAVE TO GOUGE MY EYES OUT NOW!" Why? Because people - myself fully included - are uncomfortable with nudity because society as a whole has drilled it into our heads and brought us up with the idea that we should be covered-up in some way, shape, or form. People get upset when girls wear too little clothing (well... some people do, anyway... - . -). People get upset when guys wear pants that show their underwear. It's a society-decided thing. We wouldn't have a problem with it if society hadn't made it "bad" at some point. Meh. I'm rambling again. I need to go calm down. ^^;
|
|
|
Post by Joseph on Apr 2, 2004 16:28:38 GMT -5
I'm not saying war doesn't have its downsides! Of course human lives are precious. But sometimes war just needs to happen. I'm not approving of war intrinsically when I say this. I'm not saying only good things will happen to the warring country. By now I think it's clear my view on war. As a conservative Christian, it's against my religion to approve of gay marriage. I know I'm going to get a lot of guff for this. My response to the notion that it's preventing people from having their civil rights is Matthew 5:19. It's one of the most important verses to my faith. So I'm not going to encourage people to do that. However, I know if people really want to do something like that, they are going to find a loophole or do the next closest thing anyway. It's just that I don't want a part in doing that. I don't hate anyone, I just don't approve of what people do, in this case. Censorship. Sometimes I like hearing about the efforts to remove lewd shows (PTC doesn't just complain about shows and do nothing. They notify advertisers that the advertiser is supporting lewdness on television, and sometimes the advertiser agrees to stop supporting the program. I don't see anything wrong in doing this.). However, sometimes I enjoy just letting things be as they are. I don't think late-night adult shows should have the same profanity/violence requirements as children's shows, or shows on during primetime. I agree that you should have a 'healthy' view of the world-- healthy doses of both optimism and pessimism. But in my mind, I don't see how something like TV violence trains you for the real world. The adult life that I live is not filled with violence and drugs. Is yours? As I said before, I think there's too much sexual innuendo on TV, BUT it's okay to show some sexual reference IF it's done in a clever, subtle way. Basically, it's not WHAT they show, it's HOW they show it that I'm concerned with. That's my rule of thumb. The reason I think TV should show a slightly better world than the one we live in is because of Philippians 4:8. I want to think about good things! There isn't a problem with showing a crime or other bad stuff on TV, AS LONG AS the perspective shows that doing it is wrong, and some justice is involved if necessary. It's not wrong to portray something bad, but it's wrong to glorify it. I still approve of FCC's children programming requirements though because it has made a big impact on my personal viewing. I've watched many great children's shows that happened to follow the E/I guidelines, and I probably wouldn't have if those guidelines were not in effect. So that's why I specifically say that. You have no idea what contemptible stuff I have to put up with when my roommates watch TV! That's why I'd be so happy if they improved standards. That's my personal opinion.
|
|
|
Post by molotov889 on Apr 2, 2004 17:12:32 GMT -5
Joseph, explain to me how Matthew 5:19 answers the concerns of about denying people their civil rights? After all, the government is not supposed to be the church; they're not concerned with being great or least in heaven, so that verse, to me, doesn't really apply.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph on Apr 2, 2004 21:02:36 GMT -5
My reasoning isn't too hard to figure out.
If I were to support gay marriage, it would be the same as encouraging or teaching people that doing that thing is right. Therefore, according to the verse, I would be the least in the kingdom of Heaven. And I don't want that! Do you think just because people work for the government, they are completely exempt from being least in the kingdom of Heaven? If I worked for the government, I would still put thought into the kingdom of Heaven. One of the things about faith for me is that I don't need secular arguments to defend it.
|
|
|
Post by molotov889 on Apr 3, 2004 0:13:53 GMT -5
Ok, so you're saying it's just your PERSONAL reason for not supporting it. I realize that people can have personally be lookin out for themselves when it comes to religion. So, no, I don't think that being in government changes your religious qualifications or whatnot. However, government and politics is, by its nature, a public affair. And you can't apply personal religious beliefs to people who don't have the same faith you do. So I think that, though this might be a good reason for Christian believers, it can't and doesn't apply to everyone. To deal with the issue on a political stage, the religious element has to be taken out of it.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph on Apr 3, 2004 1:01:40 GMT -5
The Bible wasn't written PERSONALLY for me. It's for all who would hear its message. Heh, I guess that's not what you meant.
It's true; priests may not run the government, but the church's role is to act as the conscience of the government. So the government will do what it will, but the church will tell the government its thoughts on the matter (just as I've just told you my thoughts). But after that, it's in the hands of the legislators.
|
|
|
Post by molotov889 on Apr 3, 2004 10:25:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I meant it more as that's what you personal think for justification of your stance. As for the church's role as being the conscience of the government... I think I see what you're saying in that, but I don't think it's as direct of a role as what you might be implying. Plus, I always thought the church's (and I'm assuming from your usage that you actually mean the people, not the actual institution of a church) role is to have fellowship amongst Christians, not really to have any governmental role. But, like you said, the church, just like everyone else, has the right to speak thei opinions and whatnot, but ultimately, it's in the hands of the government.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph on Apr 3, 2004 13:05:53 GMT -5
I pretty much agree with all that. We, the church, believe its our role to have an influence on society, even though it's technically not a official role. But people have a choice. But why is nudity so "bad"? I am being totally serious. We're born nude. We're not born with clothes on. I think I speak for the majority when I say that almost all of us have pictures our parents have taken of us as little kids when we were running around with no clothes on (if only to later embarass us with them when boyfriends/girlfriends come to call). It's okay to be naked if you're home and the only person who will see you is your husband or wife. But I would discourage people from going out in public naked, because it is immodest. A person could go streaking if they wanted to. Doing that is less preferable, but not evil. Look at the indecent exposure laws of your state. I know there's a variation in tolerance of nudity from country to country (just think of Japanese public bathhouses). However, it's true that the outside appearance doesn't matter, it's what is in a person's heart that really matters, but to be modest-looking in most outside social atmospheres would be preferable. Here are some things to think about when it comes to clothing: (1) What does it make other people think of me? (2) Predominantly, what kind of people dress this way? (3) Will it cause others to stumble?
|
|
|
Post by Mystical Sand on Apr 3, 2004 13:36:07 GMT -5
Why worry so much about how other people perceive you, though?
This is what I think about when I go shopping for clothes: 1) How much does it cost/Can I afford it? (XD) 2) Does it fit? 3) Is it comfortable? 4) Do I like the way it looks on me?
'Course, that stems from the fact that I try really hard NOT to care what other people think of me, due to the fact that worrying about it just upsets me. ^^; And that's no fun.
|
|
|
Post by Joseph on Apr 4, 2004 1:48:29 GMT -5
I'm just saying that what you wear indicates how you want other people to see you.
|
|
|
Post by Singe on Apr 6, 2004 13:26:28 GMT -5
Very nice arguments.
1. No other person has the right to control anothers life unless it endangers others. 2. For Yu-gi-oh it's really hard to watch the uncensored. Either illegaly bootleg copied or fansubbed on the web. Else paying more than 5000 dollars to go to Japan to get the original. Last break into 4kids and steal the copies of the series. For those who want to watch it deeply. In other words if the balance is not set like edit and orginal then there will be unrest. 3. Censorship has loop holes nudity can be shown if it has an historic or education value. Titanic you see her whole.
Also why until the last three months did this start? Besides the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident which should be dropped. 1. The year is 2004 and it's time for election. 2. Fines are being increased and where will the money go. Campain for Bush. 3. By controlling the censorship of television, all anti-Bush ads will be eliminated. Weird I only seen one twice and it's now gone. 4. Besides the war, Bush doesn't really have a lot to offer. That was a fast four years.
Iraq- Okay the U.S. in the past helped give Saddam the power in Iraq. Saddam was working for the U.S. paying them with oil. Note there was many people killed by Saddam. He did get what he deserved. So while I might dislike the war, "It's over", it was very important move to take him down.
|
|