|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted September 22, 2010 01:44 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 01:45, 22 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
Quote:
There is no reason to think that some loony politician should have the right to determine medical care and religious beliefs for the children of everyone else.
This isn't about that. It's about blood transfusions.
Errrr.....last I'm not a doctor but I'm pretty sure that a blood transfusion is medical care.  And a medical procedure forced on a person or on his family by some power-hungry politician that thinks he has the right to toy with the lives and beliefs of others is just wrong.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 22, 2010 08:48 PM |
|
|
I dunno, it might have something to do with the French temperament that they feel it to be their moral duty as human beings to save these innocent children from their mad, despotic, deathmongering parents.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted September 22, 2010 09:43 PM |
|
|
tell you what...
Religion keeps out of the government, and government keeps out of religion, it's a simple as that. You can't have it one way without having it the other way.
pretty much every major governmental leader, around the world, belongs to a religion. Most of their cabinets, including military heads, belongs to a religion. Most of the major news networks, as well as the vast multi faceted corporations, are owned by religious hands. most of the celebrities in the world belong to a religion, from sensible to bat-s**t insane. the world is intrinsically tied to religion, and thus to demand privacy and any more freedom is unbelievably selfish.
You will get you're privacy and your freedom, when religion has no part in our society any longer.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 23, 2010 12:44 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 00:45, 23 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
You will get you're privacy and your freedom, when religion has no part in our society any longer.
Actually, the US is the most free nation in the world precisely because of its Christian heritage.
We have seen what occurs in officially atheist nations. Mass murder on a scale all other religions in the world combined have not come close to approaching. Officially atheist nations have all been tyranical, the logical conclusion of materialistic atheism where "might" is all the matters and "moral" has no meaning.
Anyways, anyone who is opposed to a medical procedure should not be forced to undergo the procedure and no one should be able to force someone else's family member to undergo a medical procedure either. It is unfortunate that the only time many people think a person has a right to control their own body is when the person is murdering an unborn baby in her womb.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 23, 2010 12:48 AM |
|
|
And yet you condone something which has the same consequence.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 25, 2010 11:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyways, anyone who is opposed to a medical procedure should not be forced to undergo the procedure and no one should be able to force someone else's family member to undergo a medical procedure either.
Vaccinations?
But let's not cloud the issue. There is a deadly difference between a grown-up who suffers under a disease and is suggested a cure that comes with a certain percentage of success and failure, and a child that needs treatment to survive (because it will die without it), and is not allowed to undergo the treatment because of the religious belief of its parents.
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 25, 2010 11:14 PM |
|
|
@Elodin: Christianity is peripheral. Liberalism is the thought that America was founded upon.
But then again, this doesn't have much to do with the actual topic.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 12:53 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Anyways, anyone who is opposed to a medical procedure should not be forced to undergo the procedure and no one should be able to force someone else's family member to undergo a medical procedure either.
Vaccinations?
But let's not cloud the issue. There is a deadly difference between a grown-up who suffers under a disease and is suggested a cure that comes with a certain percentage of success and failure, and a child that needs treatment to survive (because it will die without it), and is not allowed to undergo the treatment because of the religious belief of its parents.
NO, no one should be forced to be vaccinated.
NO,a loony politician should not be able to dictate the child's ability to follow the child's religion. If the child does not want a blood tranfusion for whatever reason no loony-tunes liberal politician who thinks he owns the population should be able to force him to receive a blood transfusion.
POLITICIANS DON'T OWN THE CITIZENS. POLITICIANS ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS. Liberals have things reversed, thinking the people exist to serve the state when in fact the state exists to serve the people.
Parents are the ones who should make the medical decisions of their minor children after discussing the issues with the child, assuming the child is capable of comprehending the issues. A parent should allow a child who is mature enough to make the decision himself. The parent is alos in a much better position to know the child's maturity than some loony politician is. Some loony tunes liberal politician DOES NOT have the right to dictate the medical care of all children in the nation. That Marxist concept is just immoral.
Quote:
@Elodin: Christianity is peripheral. Liberalism is the thought that America was founded upon.
But then again, this doesn't have much to do with the actual topic.
You could not be more wrong. The founding fathers were so very very very far from liberalism. They opposed public welfare, they opposed big government, the opposed loony politicians contolling the lives of the citizens (like the liberal idea of mandated health care insurance). They were for low taxes (lbs never met a tax hike they didn't love), they said EVERY CITIZEN should be AT ALL TIMES ARMED. Most libs are loony anti-gun people. Libs tend to think that rights come from the State. The founders said the rights come from God.
So nah, the founding fathers and today's liberals have nothing in common at all.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 01:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You could not be more wrong. The founding fathers were so very very very far from liberalism. They opposed public welfare, they opposed big government, the opposed loony politicians contolling the lives of the citizens (like the liberal idea of mandated health care insurance). They were for low taxes (lbs never met a tax hike they didn't love), they said EVERY CITIZEN should be AT ALL TIMES ARMED. Most libs are loony anti-gun people. Libs tend to think that rights come from the State. The founders said the rights come from God.
So nah, the founding fathers and today's liberals have nothing in common at all.
Elodin, honey, baby, darling. Keksimaton meant classical liberalism, which is linked to what you, yanks, call libertarianism or neo-liberalism. I don't know how you guys perverted the meaning (and that's not keksi's fault and you'd know this, if you tried to understand what keksimaton was saying, baby, but you're just all against peace, love and understanding here), but the Old World calls the two sides of the economical spectrum liberalism and socialism.
This makes sense as liberalism was opposing authoritarian systems, like absolutism (though, the UK couldn't honestly be called absolutist, but let's not get into America's birth. It's just as stupid and messy as births of most other nations that glorified it for their own purposes). You know I love you, right?
And stop calling people who think we can live in this world without guns "loonies."
You kheep using that hword. I don't it means what you think it means.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 05:02 AM |
|
|
Quote:
they said EVERY CITIZEN should be AT ALL TIMES ARMED. Most libs are loony anti-gun people. Libs tend to think that rights come from the State. The founders said the rights come from God.
First there was the ancient Jewish view of God.
Then there was Jesus'.
Then there was the middle ages Church one, and then the view of the founding fathers.
All of them identical except for Jesus'.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 05:29 AM |
|
|
I don't claim to know everything the "founding fathers" said, but the only thing I know of about expecting people to be armed was for the militia. If the militia was activated every man of a certain age was expected to supply his own firearm, balls and powder (and I think some other things). I think this was part of the militia act or whatever it was called, and it's what justified the draft (and still does as far as I know). This came some time after the founding of the nation, but I think it was many of the same people.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 09:05 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyways, anyone who is opposed to a medical procedure should not be forced to undergo the procedure and no one should be able to force someone else's family member to undergo a medical procedure either.
Vaccinations?
But let's not cloud the issue. There is a deadly difference between a grown-up who suffers under a disease and is suggested a cure that comes with a certain percentage of success and failure, and a child that needs treatment to survive (because it will die without it), and is not allowed to undergo the treatment because of the religious belief of its parents.
NO, no one should be forced to be vaccinated.
NO,a loony politician should not be able to dictate the child's ability to follow the child's religion. If the child does not want a blood tranfusion for whatever reason no loony-tunes liberal politician who thinks he owns the population should be able to force him to receive a blood transfusion.
POLITICIANS DON'T OWN THE CITIZENS. POLITICIANS ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS. Liberals have things reversed, thinking the people exist to serve the state when in fact the state exists to serve the people.
Parents are the ones who should make the medical decisions of their minor children after discussing the issues with the child, assuming the child is capable of comprehending the issues. A parent should allow a child who is mature enough to make the decision himself. The parent is alos in a much better position to know the child's maturity than some loony politician is. Some loony tunes liberal politician DOES NOT have the right to dictate the medical care of all children in the nation. That Marxist concept is just immoral.
The looniest tune I see here starts with an E and ends on a din.
Vaccinations are by no means a personal decision because they are protecting the whole body of society against plagues, and the concept has proven to be successful. For that reason, in the US they are mandatory and rightly so.
For the rest, you don't make any sense at all. Defend the right of religiously blinded idiots to kill their children - it's still murder. A child that needs a blood transfusion, is in no condition to argue. Someone else has to make the decision.
And here the parents have no right whatsoever to let their child die because of THEIR personal religious delusions.
It is the CHILD who has the right to be protected from such delusional decisions, getting it killed.
Letting a child die for fear it could forego salvation is murder for superestitious beliefs. You could just as wwll kill a child and then claim it was the anti-christ or something.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 01:18 PM |
|
|
You don't understand.
People like Elodin (and there are probably those who really think that way and aren't trolling the crap out of us) have this view of freedom which rests heavily on the belief that children are private property, to be treated in accordance with their parents' wishes, no matter how deranged they are. They think so simply because that's part of their agenda, and they're using every excuse possible to point fingers at the government, no matter if it sometimes does something sensible, like protecting underaged citizens when their parents are mentally unstable and unable to do so. Children's lives are of no consequence for those people, and as far as they're concerned, they can all die painfully cause of their parents' cults, as long as they let out their frustrations because they have to pay taxes every month.
Should a parent like to forbid it from getting treated when it breaks an arm or leg because their religion states it's unnatural to fix someone's bone, or decide to rape it repeatedly, he's free to do so, because the state should have no right to interfere.
In fact, the recent case of Josef Fritzl is a good example of how the government is controlling a man's life and intruding upon his liberty and privacy.
God knows how much I dislike governments but this is just disgusting.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 01:47 PM |
|
|
Also, saying that the right of the stronger is the logical conclusion to "materialistic atheism" is like saying that the King's divine right is the logical conclusion to Christianity.
And to decipher some of what Dagoth is saying: Liberalism is the ideology of liberty and it's about every man having the freedom to make their own happiness. The contemporary "liberal" movement in America is more about progressing with the times and keeping things fresh and up to date where as the conservative movement is about conserving the old ways which in America's case are liberal in the European sense, if that makes any sense.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 07:53 PM |
|
|
Liberalism in America is mostly dead. Neither ameriliberals nor conservatives are liberal in any meaningful sense.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 08:03 PM |
|
|
How is that?
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 09:14 PM |
|
|
Both parties are too authoritarian - the Democrats want more regulation, higher taxes, national health care, strong unions, trade barriers, oppose immigration for economic reasons, etc, and the Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act (not that the Democrats want to repeal it), and support militarism, heavy religious involvement in government, etc. And, of course, neither party wants to legalise marijuana, same-sex marriage, polygamy, and prostitution, or abolish the minimum wage and all international trade barriers.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 10:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
abolish the minimum wage
How's that bad? Want janitors and such to be paid 100$ per month? Unless you want Poland in US, I don't think that is good 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 10:28 PM |
|
|
It might have some economical interest to not have a set minimum wage. I guess that way you'd be able to hire a bunch of American people for your sweatshops instead of taking the sweatshops to China.
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 26, 2010 11:13 PM |
|
|
Abolishing the minimum wage is basic economics. It's a price floor, and price floors reduce well-being because they create surpluses. (In this case, the surplus is called "unemployment".) The marginal productivity of labour is the determinant of wages, so the minimum wage does not increase wages.
Before minimum wage:
After minimum wage:
Regardless, abolishing the minimum wage is a liberal policy.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
