Agree or Disagree?

Naked Snake wrote:Hon, it's cool. I got this.

Thanks babe, I'm getting a headache.

Thewizardofodd, in the chatbox. You pissed him off pretty badly. I think he left after that.

That discussion took place almost two years ago, and Wiz has returned since then. He was claiming that you can mix Christianity with Witchcraft. I told him you couldn't because they are ''oxymorons.'' Laughing_Man came on the CB at some point, and agreed with me. His exact words were ''well they kinda are. Almost every bible says not to screw with magic.''

But I don't recall telling Wiz he was a ''tool of the devil'' once, let alone repeatedly. The only time I recall ever having a discussion with Wiz that had to do with wiccans was the one I mentioned above, and I distinctly remember us making peace after that.

So when you watched that video I posted, and you saw that successful, well read, well spoken young man you honestly thought a straight couple would have raised him better?

Honestly, no. That wasn't what I was thinking.

My main issue with the whole homosexual adoption thing is since two men or two women can't conceive children on their own, I don't think they were meant to have any kids. Child-rearing is entailed with Child-bearing, and since they can't perform the latter, for them to adopt would be like weasling past the laws of Nature, an unwritten law or something, and I don't support the idea of that. I just feel they weren't *supposed* to raise kids, since they can't even have them and only man and woman can reproduce. It doesn't really have anything to do with their sexual orientation or that I think they'll infect kids with *gayness*. I said homosexuals can't raise kids like heterosexuals can because I don't think a father can substitue a mother or a mother substitute a father. But according to the the video, i'm wrong. And I guess I have to concede that.

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:My main issue with the whole homosexual adoption thing is since two men or two women can't conceive children on their own, I don't think they were meant to have any kids. Child-rearing is entailed with Child-bearing, and since they can't perform the latter, for them to adopt would be like weasling past the laws of Nature, an unwritten law or something, and I don't support the idea of that. I just feel they weren't *supposed* to raise kids, since they can't even have them and only man and woman can reproduce.

So, let's say I got married, and it turns out either my husband or I are infertile. Are you saying, then, that since we can't produce kids by ourselves, we shouldn't be allowed to adopt and raise children? By that argument, the only people who should be able to adopt are those that don't need to, those that can have their own babies. All that does is make kids something to trade back and forth between the priveliged.

If you're looking at that and saying, "But that's not the same!" then let me say that the reason you're having trouble with it isn't that they can't have kids, it's why they can't have kids.

I see no problem with homosexual couples raising kids. I see no problem with a single parent raising kids. I see a problem with an orphanage raising kids because we've outlawed their adoption by everyone except those who don't need to adopt.

Next statement:

Week 15: Watching Pornography when you have a significant other IS cheating.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

I really, really don't see this leading anywhere minor-friendly. All possible avenues of discussion will lead to something X-rated. Please think of a different question.

I gotcha.

New statement:

Week 15:People shouldn't be allowed to carry guns.

Agree or Disagree? Why?

Depends on the gun.

Hunting rifle? Sure. Handgun or other weapon who's main consumer use is killing people, no.

Hunting rifles should also be limited, and should require a license that needs re-certification not unlike a driver's license.

This is, of course, for for private citizens and not for people such as police officers who are required to carry a fire arm as per their job of keeping the peace.

Disagree.

No firearm zones are places where trigger happy wackos go to kill people. Why do you think schools always get shot up? I'm not saying we should all carry guns wherever we go, I'm merely in support of the second amendment.

Handguns are good for protection though Sponge, say your house gets broken into, the site of a handgun would scare off the common theif.

I agree, but only to a certain extent. The right to keep and bear arms is an outdated holdover from another era, but that's not to say it's without practical use; aside from the obvious--hunting--there are numerous instances of private citizens saving their own lives and the lives of others with their privately-owned firearms firearms.

That said, there need to be restrictions and regulations on gun ownership. There is absolutely no reason for anybody outside of the military or police force to own boron-tipped incendiary rounds or heavy weaponry. Or for a repeat offender to own any firearm whatsoever.

No firearm zones are places where trigger happy wackos go to kill people. Why do you think schools always get shot up?

Because teenagers are crazed hormone bombs. Not because people aren't allowed to carry guns at school.

I'm not saying we should all carry guns wherever we go,

You're right, you're implying it. That's different from actually stating it.

Mercy wrote:Handguns are good for protection though Sponge, say your house gets broken into, the site of a handgun would scare off the common theif.

I'm not willing to kill a person over money or whatever stuff people would want to steal from me. They can have it, I'll call the cops, they might get arrested, if not I have insurance. If you're willing to point a gun at a person, you have to be willing to kill them. It's rule one of gun ownership. I don't see the point of killing a person over a break and enter.

You'll also note that Canada is stricter on gun control here than in the USA (You have 70+ million more handguns then we do), and our murder rate is much lower per 100,000 people and those murders which DO occur here are 40% less likely to involve a firearm than in the states. (70% of all US murders use guns, VS Canada's 30%)

Hm, so both of you would say that guns used only by civilians should only be hunting rifles for sport?

I agree with some of the statements you made, but I still don't believe we should strip everyone from their handguns.

Mercy wrote:Hm, so both of you would say that guns used only by civilians should only be hunting rifles for sport?

Me wrote:aside from the obvious--hunting--there are numerous instances of private citizens saving their own lives and the lives of others with their privately-owned firearms firearms.

I said that people shouldn't be allowed to own military hardware. Show me one practical goddamn application for a privately-owned anti-material rifle that fires cyanide-tipped armor-piercing bullets.

Okay right there I agree with you. AK-47 with or without 75 round drum magazines are outlawed for a reason.

Next statement:


Week 16: Women and Minorities SHOULD be given "preferences"/plus points for the sake of gender and racial equality.


Agree or Disagree? Why or why not?

Bloody mothershuckling testicle-crunching no. Preferential treatment of minorities is among the most ironically stupid practices in industry. I'm not saying it was always this way; historically, minorities and women have been trod upon in the workforce. But its necessity is vastly reduced in the modern world.

Less so for women, however. Women still face a lot of discrimination at work, so I can understand preferential hiring practices in order to combat that. But a person's sex or ethnicity should never be the deciding factor in their hiring.

I disagree because its not fair to Whites or Males for Minorities and Women to have the upper-hand because they are either colored or female or both. I remember recently hearing about some college that cut half the amount of men on one of their sports teams so they could make a seperate female team with an equal amount of players. A lot of dudes were screwed over in the name of ''equality.''

The whole thing with preferential hiring based on race and gender opprosses white people and men. Especially white men.

Though on the other hand...

White males are the smallet single group in America, and yet they account for 78% of the wealth and power. So its not like they are totally oppressed or anything. Black females are the biggest single group in America, ironically, and I'm pretty dang sure they don't account for the remaining %22. And lets be real: if you go to any of those affluent, gated communities, there probably won't be a whole lot of minorities there. And if you go to any project or run-down "ghetto'', you probably won't see a lot of white people there. There is a big inequality when it comes to wealth and power in America. But can we fix inequality with injustice?

Disagree.

You can't have freedom and equality at the same time.

But I suppose that's besides the point. If anyone can't make the cut without "racial" or "gender" based handicaps they shouldn't have the opportunity to hold that particular job.

The phrase "oppressed white American male" should never be used in a serious context. Preferential hiring based on ethnicity or sex is unfair, but white men in America are in absolutely no danger of being "oppressed." Let's try to watch the hyperbole.

It really, really depends to me. I mean, if a company has hired nothing BUT white men, and then two applicants apply for a job (one being a white man and one being a black woman), if both of their resumes reflect the exact same levels of education and the exact same amount of experience and if they both preformed about the same in the interview, then it makes sense to hire the black lady. You have to decide somehow, and hiring to promote diversity is certainly better than hiring because an applicant likes the same local sports team as the HR manager.

But hey, lets face it. People very, VERY rarely apply for a job and end up having the same levels of education, experience and social ability. And in those cases, whoever reflects best should be hired.

On a side note: One of my pet peeves is when people make comments about any darker skinned people with a good job, saying that they only got the job because of their skin colour. I know this hasn't happened here, but the topic reminded me of how annoying this is so I thought I'd blah blah blah about it. Seriously, it's right up there with "I'm not Racist but..." for being one of my push button race comments.

I know this hasn't happened here, but the topic reminded me of how annoying this is so I thought I'd blah blah blah about it.

Thats funny, because this statement reminded me of a scene in that movie ''Crash'' when that one white guy tells a black woman (Loretta Devine) that there were ''6 white guys who deserved her job more than she did'' and that the only reason she had her job was because of his father. He was trying to guilt her into do his father a favor. And yeah, his character was racist.

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:

I know this hasn't happened here, but the topic reminded me of how annoying this is so I thought I'd blah blah blah about it.

Thats funny, because this statement reminded me of a scene in that movie ''Crash'' when that one white guy tells a black woman (Loretta Devine) that there were ''6 white guys who deserved her job more than she did'' and that the only reason she had her job was because of his father. He was trying to guilt her into do his father a favor. And yeah, his character was racist.

I thought we established that popular culture isn't a good way to form or back up an argument already. You know, when people were arguing the greater implications of morality based on Teen Titans.

Nah, I was digressing, not arguing a point. But getting back on topic, I have a follow-up question: What are you guy's opinion of scholarships that are available only to minorities?

Thecrazykid3649 wrote:Nah, I was digressing, not arguing a point. But getting back on topic, I have a follow-up question: What are you guy's opinion of scholarships that are available only to minorities?

Completely different. A-okay.

I ain't complaining about the scholarships that are only available to the people of my race, because I can benefit from it, but when you think about the whole concept, it can appear as almost insulting. The fact that there are scholarships only minorities can get implies that we aren't capable to compete fairly with white people for the same scholarships, so we need ones that are available only to us. Its like saying we aren't good enough to compete, so we need an advantage. Its kind of condescending, in a way. Maybe thats just my pride talking, but it all depends on how you look at it. Not that I am condemning those kinds of scholarships and the people who've gotten them, though.

I have a hard time viewing it as insulting; they offer scholarships for EVERYTHING. There's one for being short, one for being tall, some for knitting, some for being left-handed... it's less "you can't compete" and more "you're different and that's cool".

As for the original question, I think that it should remain the case.