playing the devils game
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-03-2016, 06:33 PM
playing the devils game
I love how some religious people seem to think that homosexuality is banable under the constitution.. I mean to them it's only a lifestyle and thus can be taxed or whatever because it's a choice.... so let's go thorough this.. you personally think that all choices are banable then.. and then remember they think that lifestyles are banable.... so lets say vegan-ism is now banable by this legal president. the constitution can be amended THAT AN ALL VEGAN DIET IS NOW ILLIGAL.{sorry caps lock} or that you can no longer have pets.... because no reason where just amending the constitution..... because bible... you know I think that's OK... I think if we can ban lifestyles and choices. then why can't we ban the lifestyle and choice religion... I know there are two arguments against this.. one it's unconstitutional... well. according to religious fundamentalist.. they just put fourth amending the constiution.. so we can change that.. and don't forget the equal protections act and the part of the constitution that guarantees the pursuit of happiness cover gay rights.. and it's morally wrong. so that person now is a hypocrite for wanting to ban someone eles's fun but when the ell tolls for them then "constitution and personal liberty"..... yeah i know I ma playing devils advocate hear.. and that the fight has been finished though I still like to think that religion.. is a lifestyle... thats a choice and isn't natural... what is your opinion on this is my pondering too much...

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-03-2016, 06:54 PM
RE: playing the devils game
The only time we should ban anything is when it's starting to become a public liability or cause harm. There is nothing harmful about being vegan or being gay as long as it's a free choice so why ban it? We should be careful to protect religious beliefs as long as those beliefs don't interfere with someone else's freedom or rights under the constitution. Once the Supreme Court decided same sex marriage is a right no religion should be able to step in the way of it or ban it.

If I had a religion that states you can't wear clothes and I just walked around naked I would get arrested, yes my religion is respected but I can't just go around breaking laws either. As long as no one is committing crimes or directly hurting anyone, including themselves, there is no reason to ban it. The only reason Christians get up in arms and say there is a "War on Christianity!" is because they've had the run of the place for a long time and now they are being challenged and forced to progress to the new era of human social norms and they don't like it. They're going to have to get used to it eventually and realize they still have freedom of speech but they don't have the freedom to discriminate or force their spiritual "values" into the law of the land.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SitaSky's post
28-03-2016, 06:58 PM
RE: playing the devils game
(28-03-2016 06:54 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  The only time we should ban anything is when it's starting to become a public liability or cause harm. There is nothing harmful about being vegan or being gay as long as it's a free choice so why ban it? We should be careful to protect religious beliefs as long as those beliefs don't interfere with someone else's freedom or rights under the constitution. Once the Supreme Court decided same sex marriage is a right no religion should be able to step in the way of it or ban it.

If I had a religion that states you can't wear clothes and I just walked around naked I would get arrested, yes my religion is respected but I can't just go around breaking laws either. As long as no one is committing crimes or directly hurting anyone, including themselves, there is no reason to ban it. The only reason Christians get up in arms and say there is a "War on Christianity!" is because they've had the run of the place for a long time and now they are being challenged and forced to progress to the new era of human social norms and they don't like it. They're going to have to get used to it eventually and realize they still have freedom of speech but they don't have the freedom to discriminate or force their spiritual "values" into the law of the land.

that is the true answer. but my devils advocacy is only following there arguments... thus by there own argument. roflao.

1. Striding and swaggering rootlessness without end. The precious flow of life.
2. one should fear sweet a blood stained flower.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 01:16 AM
RE: playing the devils game
(28-03-2016 06:54 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  The only time we should ban anything is when it's starting to become a public liability or cause harm.

Volenti non fit iniuria. Something being harmful isn't reason enough to make that something illegal; state shouldn't be nanny state which tell their citizens how to live. That's why I'm for legalizing drugs and euthanasia which certainly causes harm.

(28-03-2016 06:54 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  We should be careful to protect religious beliefs as long as those beliefs don't interfere with someone else's freedom or rights under the constitution.

What do you mean by protecting? Cause in Poland such superstitions is protected and when you say something that sheep deem offensive you can be dragged to court. In light of this I don't think that religious belief warrants protection.

(28-03-2016 06:54 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  If I had a religion that states you can't wear clothes and I just walked around naked I would get arrested, yes my religion is respected but I can't just go around breaking laws either.

So your religion isn't really respected.

(28-03-2016 06:54 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  As long as no one is committing crimes or directly hurting anyone, including themselves, there is no reason to ban it.

Again, Volenti non fit iniuria. It's not up to others to decide how people should led their lives. I care not for those who want to deny me something supposedly for my own good, cause it is from doing something to greater good greatest suffering arose.

(28-03-2016 06:54 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  The only reason Christians get up in arms and say there is a "War on Christianity!" is because they've had the run of the place for a long time and now they are being challenged and forced to progress to the new era of human social norms and they don't like it. They're going to have to get used to it eventually and realize they still have freedom of speech but they don't have the freedom to discriminate or force their spiritual "values" into the law of the land.
[/quote]

Agreed.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Szuchow's post
29-03-2016, 05:24 AM
RE: playing the devils game
Would they ban shrimp??? Gasp

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
29-03-2016, 05:40 AM
RE: playing the devils game
(29-03-2016 05:24 AM)Banjo Wrote:  Would they ban shrimp??? Gasp

And tattoos and body piercings, etc. etc.

Rolleyes

Silly fuckers.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2016, 05:58 AM
RE: playing the devils game
(28-03-2016 06:54 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  If I had a religion that states you can't wear clothes and I just walked around naked

We'd be ok with that....

Really...

We would....

...

Feel free...

Post pics...

Big Grin

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
29-03-2016, 06:14 AM
RE: playing the devils game
(29-03-2016 01:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Volenti non fit iniuria. Something being harmful isn't reason enough to make that something illegal; state shouldn't be nanny state which tell their citizens how to live.
I agree with you to some extent, but there are some problems that arise. A great example are the seat-belt laws for cars.

In the US, you have to wear a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car. All children have to be buckled up. The exact laws vary from state to state, but they're all fairly close.

At first glance, this could be considered an infringement. Adults should be able to decide their own behavior, too many laws, etc. But if a person is more likely to be injured or killed in an accident if they are not wearing a seatbelt. This puts an increased drain on society: Others have to pay for the one's mistake.

So, it's a fine line to walk. No one wants a nanny state, but there are some pretty stupid people out there.

(29-03-2016 01:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  That's why I'm for legalizing drugs and euthanasia which certainly causes harm.
Mostly agree. Euthanasia should definitely be considered a right, albeit there must be iron-clad rules in place to prevent abuse. Legalization of drugs? Marijuana, yes. Harder drugs, like opiates, tougher call. Not sure about that one.

(29-03-2016 01:16 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  In light of this I don't think that religious belief warrants protection.
I disagree on this one. A person should be allowed to practice their chosen religion, as long as it does not interfere with someone else. Medical treatment of children is a prime example. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of your own gender. But you cannot prevent someone else from doing it.

Now, I am stating this in regards to "protection" meaning protection from legal prosecution. Not "protection" from mockery or "you have to respect me".

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
29-03-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: playing the devils game
(29-03-2016 06:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I agree with you to some extent, but there are some problems that arise. A great example are the seat-belt laws for cars.

I see this rule as something very important and in some cases I deem it absolute - for example one can think that abortion is harmful but one shouldn't be able to do shit about it as it is women choice.

(29-03-2016 06:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  In the US, you have to wear a seatbelt when driving or riding in a car. All children have to be buckled up. The exact laws vary from state to state, but they're all fairly close.

At first glance, this could be considered an infringement. Adults should be able to decide their own behavior, too many laws, etc. But if a person is more likely to be injured or killed in an accident if they are not wearing a seatbelt. This puts an increased drain on society: Others have to pay for the one's mistake.

So, it's a fine line to walk. No one wants a nanny state, but there are some pretty stupid people out there.

I would prefer such to be left for people to decide. To quote Tacitus: The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government.

But it does not mean that gov should do nothing, education is the key I think and not only in the case of seat belts.

I'm not comfortable in allowing gov to make rules about such small things, here people in power decided that school cafeterias shouldn't be allowed to sell donuts and the like and decided against using salt in making meals in schools. I would say that this is treating people as a cattle. Little by little freedom is taken away and it is all for people own good.

It may look like something that don't really matter but for me it's a good way to see if gov isn't becoming overbearing. It's one thing to outlaw drunk driving and quite another to outlaw sweets in schools.

(29-03-2016 06:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Mostly agree. Euthanasia should definitely be considered a right, albeit there must be iron-clad rules in place to prevent abuse.

Sure.

(29-03-2016 06:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Legalization of drugs? Marijuana, yes. Harder drugs, like opiates, tougher call. Not sure about that one.


I think every drug should be legalized and taxed. It's not like criminalization of them
serves some sensible purpose, people who want to do drugs are doing it. "War on drugs" is only useful to police, gov and criminals.

(29-03-2016 06:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I disagree on this one. A person should be allowed to practice their chosen religion, as long as it does not interfere with someone else. Medical treatment of children is a prime example. If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry someone of your own gender. But you cannot prevent someone else from doing it.

Maybe it is some translation hiccup but I don't see right to believe in something as issue of protecting rights, it's not like state persecutes you for believing in ancient superstitions.

Being religious warrant nothing and religious person beliefs don't supersede the right of others.

(29-03-2016 06:14 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Now, I am stating this in regards to "protection" meaning protection from legal prosecution. Not "protection" from mockery or "you have to respect me".

I agree. Though in Poland protection of religion means something different, here it is chain on free speech.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Szuchow's post
29-03-2016, 07:19 AM
RE: playing the devils game
(28-03-2016 06:33 PM)kunoxian drive Wrote:  I love how some religious people seem to think that homosexuality is banable under the constitution.. I mean to them it's only a lifestyle and thus can be taxed or whatever because it's a choice.... so let's go thorough this.. you personally think that all choices are banable then.. and then remember they think that lifestyles are banable.... so lets say vegan-ism is now banable by this legal president. the constitution can be amended THAT AN ALL VEGAN DIET IS NOW ILLIGAL.{sorry caps lock} or that you can no longer have pets.... because no reason where just amending the constitution..... because bible... you know I think that's OK... I think if we can ban lifestyles and choices. then why can't we ban the lifestyle and choice religion... I know there are two arguments against this.. one it's unconstitutional... well. according to religious fundamentalist.. they just put fourth amending the constiution.. so we can change that.. and don't forget the equal protections act and the part of the constitution that guarantees the pursuit of happiness cover gay rights.. and it's morally wrong. so that person now is a hypocrite for wanting to ban someone eles's fun but when the ell tolls for them then "constitution and personal liberty"..... yeah i know I ma playing devils advocate hear.. and that the fight has been finished though I still like to think that religion.. is a lifestyle... thats a choice and isn't natural... what is your opinion on this is my pondering too much...

I hate to be rude, but my opinion is you should go back and finish 4th grade before posting more here or anywhere else for that matter.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: