Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 125
  1. #101
    Dante Obscuri is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sodom and Gomorrah - Cocytus
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    I would have to disagree in principle. You shouldn't refrain from setting rules just because the people who are affected might cause trouble, unless you reasonably expect that the enforcement itself would cause more harm than the status quo. And in this situation, I can't see how that would be the case. After all, the majority of the world's religious people aren't so indoctrinated that they have let go of all reason, now are they?
    They shouldn't necessarily be too indoctrinated in order to dislike that policy, nor should you even be religious to dislike it - take a look at SD. I think, if there's ever the intention to apply a policy like this one, it should be left up to the people to decide if they want it or not (i.e. unless the situation demands this policy to be enforced).


  2. #102
    Stuyvesant is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SA
    Posts
    1,681

    Default

    Another idiot teenage pregnancy. Here a 14yr old pops off to the loo at school and flushes the kid. Way to go. Too bad she's too young to get the death penalty.

    FOXNews.com - Texas Teen Faces Capital Murder Charges in Bathroom Death of Her Newborn - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

  3. #103
    Sherman is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    2,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou View Post
    Why is that arrogant? I won't start the whole religious debate here, but it seems to me that by this reasoning any other position on the existance of god would be equally arrogant.
    It's arrogant because you don't know. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. Just believing or not believing might not be arrogant, but when you start forcing your beliefs on other peoples lifestyles, then it becomes pretty arrogant. The Jehova's Witnesses don't force you to go to church every Sunday to save your soul. They'll pop by and knock on your door, but if you tell them to go away, they will. We shouldn't start forcing them to "go to Hell" for our own beliefs. We can suggest it to them, but if they tell us to go away, we should. It's just about respect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    But they don't know. They merely think they do because they are indoctrinated in their beliefs. Now, while I know that you probably can't eliminate religious indoctrination, you can still prevent its most harmful manifestations. Furthermore if someone is brainwashed enough to accept their religious teachings without question (as people who willingly die for their faith obviously are), can we truly say that they act of their own will? I would say that you can't, as their indoctrination overrides all rational thought.
    You don't know either. Where's your categorical proof that there is no God? You have just been indoctrinated in your beliefs by Science. These people aren't out bombing cities, they just want to be able to die in peace with the same body they arrived in. Leave them alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by saizou
    These two arguments lead to the conclusion that i.e. Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions can't really be considered to be acting willingly. It essentially should be considered a form of insanity. Therefore, the state is perfectly justified to force these people to do so, just as they are justified to force minors to do so.
    ...
    But why not on adults who don't "know better" for some reason?
    Come on. At some point Big Brother has to step down and let people do what they want to do. Holding a belief is not insanity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    Well, you don't have to be sorry for anything. However, I still can't understand your reasoning. Shouldn't morality be based on logic and reason?
    Not at all! They're two very different things. Law is not based on morality. It's based on cold reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Saizou
    I would have to disagree in principle. You shouldn't refrain from setting rules just because the people who are affected might cause trouble, unless you reasonably expect that the enforcement itself would cause more harm than the status quo. And in this situation, I can't see how that would be the case. After all, the majority of the world's religious people aren't so indoctrinated that they have let go of all reason, now are they?
    While I agree with that to a certain extent, it's only a logical argument to back up a moral one. There's already reson enough not to do it on moral grounds. And anyway, as far as "letting go of all reason" goes, if you and your government decided to sentence me and all my brethren to an eternity of damnation, I'd probably want to kick up a fuss as well. It's not like religious people have never been known to fight for their beliefs.

  4. #104
    Dante Obscuri is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sodom and Gomorrah - Cocytus
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    ^I think Saizou's point is that even if they tried to force you to go to Church, that wouldn't harm you, or anyone else. However, indoctrinating people into not having blood transfusions - when it can save their lives - can have negative effects. Not that I'm going against their beliefs, but that is a valid point.


  5. #105
    Aikido is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    2,658

    Default

    I do think there's something amusing about of bunch of people who have never experienced what it is like to raise a child arguing about this. Not that it invalidates all your points.

    My thoughts, after trolling the thread.

    It seems apparent that teenage pregnancy fucks with a lot of people's lives (the mother, the father, the parents and grandparents of said individuals, the baby, etc). And not in a good way.

    I think Europeans view sex in a different way than most Americans. It is difficult for many Europeans to imagine attitudes towards sex in some parts of the South and Mid-West. I mention this because I think if the pill were made mandatory (and I could not abide genetic alteration at birth or something along those lines -- too many unknowns in that field), I think you would see a notable increase in sex acts in teenage years in America. And I think that would, by it's natural course, lead to higher rates of STD incidence.

    Further, the pill itself is a bit problematic. The fact is that nothing was stopping these girls from "getting a ride, taking a train, or even walking," as one article pointed out, to the nearest clinic to get contraception (and God forbid anyone anyone undertake one of those heinous endeavours to save their lives). Who is to say that these young girls who were so irresponsible as to think it was a good idea to enter into a Baby Pact (peer pressure, blahblah), would be likely to take their pills religiously, at the same time every day, to give themselves the best chance of the pill being effective. The pill is, basically, very nearly 100% effective if the woman takes it properly and regularly. The pregnancies that occur despite women being on the pill are mostly due to people taking it irregularly (or missing days, etc). Point being, pill is not a panacea to teenage pregnancy (so those of you advocating sterilization from ages 11-18 would need to be undertaking a more drastic measure).

    I think sex education is important.

    In a way, this argument strikes me as a blown up version of the argument that people over a certain age should not be allowed to drive. Similar studies stating the dangers of having elderly on the road and so on. I think that issue is even less contentious than that of mandating birth control from 11 to 18. My point is, that kind of legislature would never pass in the US. Not that I expect anyone to disagree with me on this point.

    In the end, I find myself inexplicably balking at the concept of the government mandating that women (minors, in particular) take a particular drug.
    Last edited by Aikido; 06-27-2008 at 10:11 PM.

  6. #106
    Henchy432 is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Harlem
    Posts
    3,828

    Default

    Steal has a point about personal freedom. The Government shouldn't tell you what to do with your body (Roe vs Wade). However, in Europe, birth control isn't a friggin' taboo.

    Also, these kids pick and choose when to be religious. My cousin chose to have sex before marriage, but not to use birth control. That is fucking weak.

  7. #107
    barny21 is offline Senior Member Regular
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Pasay, Ph
    Posts
    164

    Default

    That's called faith henchy. NOT surprised. Some people choose to believe what's convenient. Imagine if you did everything that was on the bible. Remember that post where outrageous things from the bible were quoted? Those are some outrageous things and you'll be labelled crazy by the society if you ever did them.
    Tagalog: "Bababa ba?"
    English: "Are you going down?"

  8. #108
    Dante Obscuri is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sodom and Gomorrah - Cocytus
    Posts
    3,254

    Default

    ^The thing is, if you're going to follow your faith in a manner that's the most convenient for you, why not use contraceptives? After all, society won't lash at you for not having sex before marriage; however, having kids when you're not able to sustain them will place a burden on society. Additionally, wouldn't it be more convenient for you not to have kids until you actually have the means to raise them properly?


  9. #109
    Blackbishop is offline Junior Member Newbie
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    13

    Default

    unbelivable... i think that is the fault of themselves in first place, their parents in the second place, and some TV shows in the third place...

    Blackbishop

  10. #110
    Sherman is offline Senior Member Always Around
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tokyo
    Posts
    2,227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dante Obscuri View Post
    ^I think Saizou's point is that even if they tried to force you to go to Church, that wouldn't harm you, or anyone else. However, indoctrinating people into not having blood transfusions - when it can save their lives - can have negative effects. Not that I'm going against their beliefs, but that is a valid point.
    Yeah, I get the point, but even if it doesn't hurt you, you still wouldn't like being forced to go to Church, would you? Even though it wouldn't hurt you.

    These people think that being forced to have the blood transfusion will send them to Hell. If you would kick up a fuss about mandatory church-going, even though it wouldn't hurt you, imagine the fuss that would be kicked up about mandatory eternal damnation?

 

 
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162