Am I a right wing, radical, nut case?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacDawg, Dec 1, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MacDawg macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #1
    My experience has usually been that regardless of who you are talking too… if you are to the ‘right’ of them, you are a wacko, fundamentalist nutcase. However, if you are to the ‘left’ of them, you are a flaming, bleeding heart liberal. The person speaking always considers themselves to be the moderate, centrist and representative of reasonable and rational thought. The speaker is always the standard by which others are judged. Left of “me” = liberal, right of “me” = radical. That’s why people to the left of me, may be to the right of you, and could be considered liberal by me, and radical by you, and vice versa.

    As a corollary, those who agree with the speaker are considered ‘open minded’, while those who disagree are always ‘close minded’. Those who agree with “me” are always the ‘majority’, ‘most people’, intelligent, reasonable, sane, tolerant, etc. [Positions are stated as: “Most people understand that X position is correct…,” or “Any reasonable, sane person would have to conclude that X position is correct”, etc.] Those who disagree with “me” are considered insane, idiots, stupid, backward, brainwashed, uninformed, intolerant, and mindless. [Positions are stated as: “Only an idiot would believe that X position is true…” or “How can you be so stupid as to hold to X position.”] Consequently, many, if not most, discussions are ‘preaching to the choir’ (when others agree) or are similar to Jr. High name calling sessions (among those who disagree) rather than honest debate of issues, facts and relevant supporting data.

    So, with that in mind, among those at MR, am I a radical, wacko, close minded nutcase??

    Evolution or Intelligent Design?
    Let’s start at the very beginning… a very good place to start. Darwinism or Neo-Darwinism may be the only reasonable explanation of origins for many, but is it truly the only position? Only if you start with the premise that it is the only explanation and are closed to any other position. There are many problems associated with Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism that have been exposed. Many will hold tenaciously to a Darwinian position strictly because of the alternatives, not because of irrefutable evidence. The alternatives may lead to a belief in an intelligent design/Designer, which could mean purpose and accountability to life, and perhaps even an afterlife. Untenable positions for someone who wants to live without restraint, without absolutes and most of all, without ultimate accountability for their actions. Many reputable scientists today in fields of biology, physics, astronomy, etc. are willing to explore other options that undermine Darwinism. Exposing the fallacies of the “icons of evolution” such as the Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin’s Tree of Life, Haeckel’s embryos, and homology leads one to question the very foundations of Darwin’s principles. The advances in the fossil record, DNA research, cellular microbiology and other disciplines since the 1850’s have only served to raise questions for Darwinism, rather than to answer them. The irreducibly complex structures of the eye, the feather, the wing, blood clotting and more are still embarrassing mysteries for Darwinists.

    So, wouldn’t it be fair to say that examining the evidence against Darwinism is being open minded in the pursuit of truth? Or, does believing in an intelligent Designer based on evidence that supports it make me a wacko, right wing radical?

    Religion
    Since I believe there is an intelligent Designer, isn’t it reasonable that I believe that such a Designer might want to communicate with his design/creation? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to seek to communicate back? And if this is the foundation of religion, wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that the religion I embrace is the correct religion? I don’t see that as arrogance, or being close minded. Who believes in a religion that they are convinced is not the true religion? If after exploring possibilities (open mindedness), one embraces a position of faith to the exclusion of others, wouldn’t that be logical? Hmmmm, if not, then why isn’t a Darwinist who excludes other positions to the establishment of his own as fact (not theory) considered arrogant then? Shouldn’t a proponent of a religion (whether Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Shinto, Buddhist, Christian or other) believe that they are embracing truth? And if their religion is “true”, isn’t that mutually exclusive of others if they do not agree? Now, while it is true that there are zealots who lie, cheat, steal and kill to promote their position, holding an exclusionary position does not necessitate those extremes.

    So, wouldn’t it be fair to say that if someone believes in an intelligent Designer, and holds to a religious position, they may be excluding of other positions by definition? Or, does just believing in “God”, and the expression of that by a certain faith make me a wacko, right wing radical?

    Prayer in schools
    However, just because I believe in “God”, doesn’t mean I support prayer in the public schools (USofA). Uh, oh. Isn’t that inconsistent? Not really. Those who support prayer in the public schools are really supporting “their particular brand of prayer to their specific God”. For instance, if the schools suddenly announced that they would be allowing prayer in the public schools in the U.S., but it would be prayers to Allah, there would be an outrage. Same would be true if prayer was lead by a Priest, a Rabbi or whoever. There would be some that were offended or excluded. The problem really isn’t that the 10 Commandments (or whatever religious code you want to insert) and prayer have been taken out of the school, but that parents don’t pray in their homes and live by their own code there. It isn’t the public schools responsibility to educate my children in my faith. However, I don’t want the school to be antagonistic towards faith either. [Hence there is a problem with the exclusive presentation of Darwinism as the only reasonable and scientific system].

    So, now what do we do? Does opposing prayer in public schools make me a progressive thinking, left wing liberal?

    CONTINUED
     
  2. MacDawg thread starter macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #2
    Continued...

    CONTINUED...

    Abortion
    The question used to be “when does life begin?” until science showed us that life begins at conception. Then the question became “when does human life begin?” Then science showed us through the genetic code that human life unquestionably begins at conception. There is life. It is human. So the question became viability. First, outside the womb, then we found that early life was sustainable, and as technology advanced, life became sustainable at even early stages. Quickening (movement) was used as a standard, but further technology showed us how complete a baby is at the earliest stages. So the battle is now “personhood”, and definitions of the ability to contribute to society. Expanding definitions will always encroach on euthanasia for babies as well as the elderly, and then to the undesirable. Believing that abortion takes a human life does not mean that I advocate shooting abortion doctors. I don’t. But if a gunman came to the maternity ward of the local hospital and shot say 6 out of 10 babies, would we be outraged? What if the parents consented to him killing the babies because they couldn’t afford them, they were the wrong color, or they weren’t the right sex? Science, not religion, tells us that life, human life, begins at conception. Are we not just making excuses when we call him or her a blastocyt, an embryo, or a clump of cells so that we can dispose of him or her without conscience? If the issue is personhood, who do you trust to define “person”?

    So, if I believe that life, human life, begins at conception and that abortion takes a human life, does that make me a right wing, wacko radical?

    Stem cell research and Cloning
    Stem cell research involves more than just embryonic stem cells. The recently publicized claim that stem cell treatment allowed a paralyzed woman to walk again involved stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, not embryonic stem cells. Other treatments have been successful with adult stem cells. As I understand it, the President’s ban relates to embryonic stem cell research funded by the government. I support research on stem cells. I also support a ban on cloning and embryonic stem cells. Since I believe life is destroyed in embryonic stem cell research.

    So, does the opposition to the wholesale creation/destruction of life, even for the purpose of research, no matter how promising it might be, make me a radical, right wing, nutcase?


    Gay marriage/homosexuality
    Admittedly, my belief in an intelligent Designer/God and a code of moral beliefs shapes my thinking on this issue. Just as a Darwinist view that equates humanity with an advanced(?) evolution of random chance shapes thinking towards morality. However, not everyone who disagrees with the morality homosexuality or does not favor recognition of gay marriages is a homophobe seeking to maim and kill homosexuals. Society has imposed the laws regarding marriage, just as they have imposed the laws concerning abortion. I support the legal overturning of Roe v. Wade, and I am considered a radical right wing nut. A homosexual favors the recognition of gay marriage and wants to be considered as mainstream. I do not consider myself a racist, or a bigot. I work with many homosexuals without any discrimination or persecution. I disagree with them concerning their sexual orientation, but I may disagree with them on taxes, Iraq, Social Security and a great many other things as well.

    We all live by standards, codes of conduct and laws, whether we are religious or not. Some hold that standards are absolute, given by God, while others live by the laws imposed by society simply to function. So, if I disagree with the homosexual as to morality, does that make me a right wing, radical nut?

    Taxes
    OK, here is something a little more mundane. I favor a flat tax, or even a national sales tax over the indecipherable tax code we now have in the U.S. I realize that this would result in the dismantling of the IRS, and would affect thousands of tax preparers, but doesn’t it just make plain sense?

    What does favoring a flat tax or national sales tax make me??

    Iraq
    Should the U.S. be the conscience of the world? No, I don’t really think so. Are we the custodians of peace, justice and human rights? Hardly. Have we acted at times we should not have acted? Probably. Have we remained silent at times when we should have acted? Probably. Wasn’t it Peter Parker’s Uncle Ben who told Peter (Spiderman) that ‘with great power comes great responsibility’? Good advice, even if it comes from a movie. Should we have invaded Iraq? I don’t know. I don’t have all of the facts, and most of us probably don’t. Was S. Hussein a despot and a murderer? Yes, if we can believe anything that the media or intelligence reports. All I know is I support the men and women who make up our troops, and I pray for their swift and safe return. The Iraqi people deserve to govern themselves without our shadow. Once that is made possible, we should get the hell out.

    Does the fact that I support our troops and that I don’t vilify our government make me a right wing nut?


    Bush or Kerry
    Yes, I voted for Bush. Not because I agree with everything. Not because I support everything. Not because I know everything. But as usual, and like most people I assume, I voted for the “lesser of the two evils”. Kerry is to the left of me <smile>, so he is a liberal. Hmmmmm, he is to the left of everyone isn’t he? Even M. Moore admitted that he was the most liberal in all of Congress, making even T. Kennedy to the right of him (hard to make T. Kennedy a right winger, but he did). Kerry offered me nothing. He blew with the winds of the polls. He said whatever anybody wanted to hear. In my opinion, he was wrong on stem cell, wrong on Iraq, wrong on defense, wrong on taxes, wrong on ___________ (fill in the blank). Do I think Bush is right on everything. No. But I agreed with him more than I did Kerry on most issues. Do I trust either one. No. Do I always believe they tell the truth. Neither one. Was Bush deceptive and dishonest about his National Guard record? Probably. Was Kerry dishonest and deceptive about his Viet Nam record? Probably. Just as many voted against Bush, so by default voted for Kerry, I voted against Kerry and by default for Bush as much as anything else.

    So, by voting for Bush, does that make me an idiotic, uninformed, misguided, radical, right wing nut?


    Alright, what’s the verdict? Am I a right wing, radical nut?
    Or am I to your left and therefore a liberal?

    Or am I just someone that has a different opinion and viewpoint from you?
     
  3. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #3
    On the expressway, everyone driving slower than you is a moron and everyone who passes you is a maniac.
     
  4. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #4
    Just this morning I was yelling at some moron to get out of the left lane so I could get by him. Of course, I was only in a hurry because some maniac was on my ass. :D
     
  5. MacDawg thread starter macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #5
    Well put...
     
  6. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #6
    but are they doing so on the left or the right?
     
  7. zimv20 macrumors 601

    zimv20

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2002
    Location:
    toronto
    #7
    it makes you consistent, above all. i'd throw a little selfishness and uinformedness (i like making up words) in there, too.

    mostly the latter. none of your positions are really that radical, imo. i disagree w/ many, btw.
     
  8. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #8
    Well, you are definitely someone who apparently has more free time than I do. ;)

    You make several good points concerning the relativity of right, and you made some eloquent statements about your points of view that I respect.

    I don't have the time to comment on all of your topics, but in general I would say that you have taken the time to think through your positions, and you discuss them in an intelligent manner, which for me is far more indicative of your character than any "right-wing" or "liberal" label.

    I would note that you included abortion in your topic list, but not the death penalty. It continues to amaze me how people who are dead-set (no pun intended) against abortion support and promote the death penalty, and vice-versa.
     
  9. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #9
    Another proponent of lane discipline? It's the law in Pennsylvania. Unless you're in a buggy, then you just trod along in a rut at the edge of the road.
     
  10. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #10
    I'm a little confused how come Darwinists must keep an open mind or they are bad, but if Christians are convinced they are right to the exclusion of others that's ok.

    Other than that, you fall more into the social conservative camp from your answers rather than an economic conservative. I consider them more radical than the fiscals. But you aren't out on the Falwell wing of the party or anything.

    I agree with you on a few things and disagree with you on most. I guess that makes me a radical tree-hugging socialist/communist liberal nutjob huh?

    I'd like to hear how you feel on private property rights, enviroment vs. business priorities, states rights (particularly pertaining to medical marijuana and assisted suicide), the death penalty, and a straight answer on whether you think we did the right thing by invading Iraq.

    As long as you're willing to listen, you're not a radical in my book.
     
  11. MacDawg thread starter macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #11
    I guess there are several other topics I could have included, but I had to stop somewhere! :)

    I do support the death penalty, and I don't see that as a contradiction to my stance on abortion. The major obvious difference is the taking of innocent life (often for expediency) versus the taking of a guilty life. An innocent child's life can be taken virtually on demand, in secret, a decision made without parental consent in some cases, and even without the father's knowledge when it comes to abortion. The death penalty is executed by the 'state' under strict controls and guidelines, usually after many appeals and reexaminations have been exhausted.

    Having said that, I don't support wholesale use of the death penalty. I am aware that mistakes are made in our judicial system. However, if guilt is clearly established, and the crime is clearly heinous, then I feel the death penalty is a valid response. I don't support vigilantism, I believe the power rests with the "state". I don't follow the arguement that it is "not a deterrent". Neither is life in prison. The death penalty is a punishment, not a lesson for others, and it is definitely a deterrent to the one who is executed.

    Does this make me a right wing nut case now? :)
     
  12. katchow macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2002
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
  13. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #13
    Yes it was.
     
  14. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #14
    Oh, and how do you feel about fertility clinics?
     
  15. wordmunger macrumors 603

    wordmunger

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Location:
    North Carolina
    #15
    Please explain to me this theory of intelligent design. Most intelligent design proponents spend the majority of their time criticizing evidence for evolution by natural selection. I have yet to see a coherent theory of intelligent design. How can intelligent design be used, for example, to develop new drugs, or fight the AIDS virus? If intelligent design proves to be as valuable a theory as evolution, then I might give it some credence. As of now it simply seems to be a means to replace science instruction with biblical indoctrination. If you can show me that intelligent design is a real scientific theory, then I might believe you are not a right-wing nutcase.
     
  16. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #16
    OK, I'll start with this. You made an impressive amount of unsubstantiated statements here. For example, the "Miller-Urey experiment" is hardly regarded as without value. Yes, there were problems with the experiment, given today's knowledge of geochemical history. However, that does not make the experiment useless. Further information on why can be found here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html#Miller-Urey

    Additionally, this experiment largely addressed the issue of abiogenesis, which is a distinctly different theory than evolution. This is one of the largest problems in discussing evolution today: people are purposefully trying to obscure the definition of evolution. Abiogenesis is different from "Evolution: the Theory" which is different from "Evolution: the Fact." Yet they are constantly debated as if they were one thing.

    "Embarrassing mysteries"? Er, I don't know about that. The problem I have with your whole paragraph on this subject is you throw out a huge amount of completely unsubstantiated statements and then say "so you'd have to be a zealot NOT to question evolution."

    Look, the reason that, for some, evolution and creationism cannot co-exist is because of something you said in the next section: religion (and therefore, creationism) is based on faith.

    When you chose your religion, you chose to have faith that a certain God exists, that he is almighty, that there are no other Gods, etc. But the decision was largely based on something completely unprovable: faith. What evidence do you have that the Bible is the word of God? What evidence do you have for God's existance? What evidence do you have that Jesus was the son of God? The answer to all those questions HAS to be: little to no evidence. It is a matter of faith. I completely respect that.

    But when creating scientific theories, how much value does that faith have? Does faith support arguments about factual matters? How could it? Faith isn't based on fact, it is based on the belief of individuals. Belief has nothing to do with facts.

    If you have faith and believe every word of the bible, then God created man as a Human. Humans didn't evolve from anything else, they were put here by God. Done. No matter how much evidence--facts--we mustered up, would we change your faith? Probably not, as your faith isn't based on fact. So you will constantly believe evolution is wrong. Many of these people will actively work to discredit scientific theories (based on observable facts) because they don't sit well with their faith (based on their beliefs, not observable facts).

    On the other hand, someone who thinks ONLY in terms of observable facts will try to convince you that, because we have no observable proof, God can't exist. They take the opposite extreme in their lack of spirituality.

    But aren't most people somewhere in the middle? Does creationism HAVE to mean "God created man as a human." Why does intelligent design preclude the idea of evolution? Can't a person look at abiogenesis as invalid but believe that God could have created the original biological building blocks of life that we evolved from?

    Evolution is an observable fact. Don't believe me, read up on it. Man has witness the phenomenon of evolution as it has happened.

    Evolution is also a theory. A theory that many people (including myself) consider to have flaws. WHY and HOW evolution happens is still somewhat up in the air, but the fact that it happens remains unchanged. Given this situation, those of us with BOTH a rational mind and a spiritual side, try to reconcile the two when dealing with evolution. Given that we've seen evolution in action (it is a fact), where does God fit into the process?

    Those who believe evolution (as a theory) is 100% right and those who believe their faith precludes the possibility of evolution ARE extremists. Questioning evolution (the theory) is a necessary part of the scientific process and I actively encourage it. And kids SHOULD be taught in school which parts of the theory are solid and which have a shaky foundation. But creationisms? I don't think so. Given that the foundation of creationism assumes a almighty God (read: faith), there is little in the way of observable evidence for it. So if there are no facts supporting creationism, what would we teach the kiddies? From the Bible? Teaching from an article of faith would be tantamount to teaching faith. A big no-no in my book.

    Taft
     
  17. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #17
    Let's also distinguish between the teaching of creationism in biology/history classes vs. teaching the creation myth in a literature class.

    The first I am against, the second I would support particularly if it was a comparitive class looking at many cultures creation mythos.
     
  18. MacDawg, Dec 1, 2004
    Last edited: Dec 26, 2010

    MacDawg thread starter macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #18
    Hmmmmm, I didn't say that I was a Christian, just that I believed in an intelligent designer/God. :) I think both groups probably tend to paint the other into an extreme corner. Most Darwinists I know are not willing to discuss any alternative, which is why I often view them as closed minded. Being persuaded of an opinion is not bad, it is admirable. Being able to clearly deliniate, discuss and defend a position without resorting to name calling or becoming emotional vitriolic is preferred. I have always welcomed two way discourse on issues with supporting data. I don't have all the answers to intelligent design, but I am convinced that Darwinism doesn't provide all of the answers either. I have yet to dialogue with a Darwinist that would admit to the problems they face. Not saying they aren't there, just haven't met them myself.


    The death penalty I addressed above in response to another post, but I will try to respond to your other inquiries where I have an opinion.

    Private property rights
    Not sure the emphasis here, but I believe in owning property as opposed to a more socialistic/communistic approach (capitalism so to speak). I believe citizens have the right to own and control their property.

    Not asked, but related... gun control
    I am not a member of the NRA, but I do own my own guns: handguns (.357 loaded, .22), rifles (.30-.30, .22) and shotguns (.410, 20 gauge). I have never pointed one at another person. Nor have I shot and killed an animal. Not that I wouldn't, but just haven't. (I prefer fishing, catch and release BTW). I do believe in the right to bear arms. I don't go around saying things like "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns" or anything, but I do believe it is a fundamental right. As far as assault weapons and bans... I'm afraid I don't really know all of the legislation involved. Call me ignorant. I don't think a hunter needs an automatic weapon, but I understand the slippery slope of legislation. In my opinion, most of the laws enacted in reponse to gun 'events' like Columbine, et. al. don't really hinder those type of events.

    enviroment vs. business priorities
    I think we are to be good stewards of the enviroment, but not slaves to it. From what I know of the Alaska Wildlife Refuge issue and oil drilling, which admittedly is not much, I don't see a problem with it. To me, balance is the key. I think for most of us though, we don't ever get all of the information because of all of the propoganda that comes from both sides.

    states rights (particularly pertaining to medical marijuana and assisted suicide
    For the most part, I favor states rights. There are cases where Federal laws are helpful for consistency, and we are seeing some of those inconsistencies with the marriage laws, which will create chaos if you are married in some states but not in others.

    When it comes to medical marijuana, we do use other drugs for medicinal purposes. However, it must be conceded that the potential for abuse when it comes to marijuana would be high. I think there is a lot of propoganda on both sides of this issue as well, but I would not be in favor of medical marijuana without strict, and I mean strict guidelines and supervision, and only if other alternatives are not available. I don't want to be cold and uncaring to anyone's suffering, but the slope here is awful slippery too.

    As far as assisted suicide, I am not in favor of this either. And I am no stranger to the suffering. I watched my mother suffer and die from lung cancer. It was ugly. But I value life as precious, and the potential of abuse with euthanasia is too great a risk in my opinion. I understand the desire to die with dignity, but I feel the medical community should be trusted as healers, not as enablers. Soylent Green is people!!

    a straight answer on whether you think we did the right thing by invading Iraq
    We probably should have taken care of things the first time around in the original Gulf War... but you wanted a straight answer.

    The staight one word answer is "no".

    The longer explained version is, "not when we did". I was not and am not opposed to military action in Iraq (or other places if warranted). I would have preferred to wear him down more, isolate and marginalize him more, and build more world support, especially in the Muslim community. I would not and did not favor more inspectors and propoganda, more dialogue, or lifting of sanctions. The situation needed attention, I would have waited longer I think.

    Having said that, I do not think the war is just for oil or the control of oil. And I do believe that in the end, the Iraqi people will be better off. With that in mind, I would support finishing the job ASAP and getting the hell out.

    I think that was all I needed to address :)

    So does this make me more of a wingnut?
     
  19. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #19
    -hm i' think that evolution comes pretty close to realtiy
    -i have nothing against religion as long as it keeps it's fingers out of my live or politics
    -i'm against prayers in school but have no problem with the religous education every group gets seperated in public school because it keeps religion out of other subjects
    -i'm pro abortion untill a certain time of pregnacy
    -i'm pro limited stem cel lresearch but against cloning of complete humans (but i wouldn't have a problem with cloning of human organs like livers etc. in labs)
    -i have no problems with gay marriage, because it doesn't affect me at all
    -taxes are taxes ...
    -iraq thing perhaps the right thing in the end but completly shortsighted planned and with perhaps shady motives for the whole thing
    -i understand that some vote for bush but i wouldn't vote for him
    -i have t-shirts with "us-army"(black),"moscow 80"(red)

    what does this make me ?
     
  20. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #20
    Isn't there a commandment somewhere about "Thou shalt not kill"? I don't remember a distinction that says it's okay if someone is "guilty." How can you contend that you are driven by faith, but ignore it on this topic?

    I am also frustrated by those who make statements about Islamic fanatics killing "in the name of Allah" is against the very premise of that religion, then in the same breath say something like "God bless America in our battle against terrorism." We can't have it both ways.

    BTW - I don't think you are a nut case. Right wing, yes. Different viewpoints, definitely. Nut case, probably not - you use a Mac, after all. ;)
     
  21. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #21
    vs
    I'm curious about these two statements. The first suggests that questioning assumptions is the way to truth, which I happen to agree with. But then how is a Darwinist who has explored the possibilities, and embraced a position (opposite yours) to the exclusion of others, wrong for doing just what you suggest to do with creationism?

    Also, are you as concerned with the potention abuse of Oxycontin like you are with the potential abuse of marijuana?
     
  22. pdham macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Location:
    Madison
    #22
    As Taft said, I think it is very important to distinguish between the various types of origins and development of species when discussing the topic. May I suggest three categories: abiogenesis; which is the origin of life, i.e. premordial soup. Macroevolution (I know this isnt the best term); which would be the eveolution, via Darwin's principle, from protozoa through monkey to man. And Microevolution; the observable changes in species. i.e. the different kinds of finch on the different Gallopagous (sp?) islands, or the white to black to white moth of the English industrial revolution.

    Personally I do not have faith in abiogenesis or "Macroevolution", but absolutely feel that microevo. occurs around us daily (obviously slowly).

    Paul
     
  23. Taft macrumors 65816

    Taft

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    #23
    I'll focus on this line: "However, it must be conceded that the potential for abuse when it comes to marijuana would be high."

    Two words for you: prove it.

    Also, what constitutes abuse? Is using marijuana recreationally considered abuse? Why, when using alcohol recreationally is not? Do you think that marijuana is more addictive or prone to abuse than, say, Tylanol with Codine or alcohol? If so, prove it (hint: it isn't).

    It sounds to me as though your sole objection to marijuana is a moral one (ie. you think drug abuse is "wrong"). If that is the case, then I'd think you would be campaigning against alcohol/tobacco use. Why not? And how do you explain the fact that marijuana is less addictive/prone to abuse than either alcohol or tobacco and yet it is illegal while the other two are legal? Seems like a strange double standard to me.

    Want the facts on marijuana's addictive properties as compared to other drugs? Visit this link: http://drugwarfacts.org/addictiv.htm

    Taft
     
  24. MacDawg thread starter macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #24
    Didn't want to take the space to list your whole quote, but you made some very good points and valid distinctions.

    First, my unsubstantiated statements were merely that, statements, not arguments and defenses. Time and space precluded a detailed analysis of all that was said.

    However, if I read your post right, I do believe that there is a lot of common ground between us.

    You are right, I did lump all of evolution into one basket, and that was probably unfair on my part, but again, forgive me for lack of time and space in doing so.

    There are distinctions to be made between the origin of life itself (which Darwin really did not address as far as I understand it), and the development of life beyond the first life. The Miller-Urey experiment is far too often used as a "proof" of evolution/origin, when indeed it is not. That was the point I was trying to make.

    As far as evolution beyond first life... yes, there is evidence of evolution, but within limits. The gaps between fish and amphibian, amphibian and reptile, reptile and man, reptile and bird are huge gaps that have never been demonstrated and no valid sequence between them proposed. Natural selection, mutation and such have proven inadequate to explain the irreducible complexities of things such as the eye, the feather, the wing, blood clotting and so forth.

    While faith is faith, it is not necessarily baseless. Faith can take into account many things.

    I may come back to this, but looks like I have some other responses to answer...
     
  25. MacDawg thread starter macrumors P6

    MacDawg

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2004
    Location:
    "Between the Hedges"
    #25
    The Biblical commandment you refer to is translated from the Hebrew in the King James Version as "thou shalt not kill". The Hebrew word used here is "murder". The same Bible that gives that commandment, also advocates the death penalty in certain cases, but specifically because of murder. "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed" Genesis 9:6

    However, I was not intending to make this a Bible/Christian thread.

    I think the suggested differences in the "killings" would be the terrorists attacks on innocent civilians, versus an army's war waged on another army or terrorist group. Indirect warfare vs. direct.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page