Oakland Bridge Collapse by terrorists.....

[HATEFACE]

Watch me make assumptions about Jeppan.
He's an atheist or agnostic. Am I right? Jeppan, feel like chiming in?

Depending on the day really but I guess agnostic would be a just label. I am anti-clergy though and I am not part of any church (any longer) as so far I have not found that suit me both as a believer and a sentient person.?

That sounds familiar. :p
Yeah, I was raised a Christian at one point and then through some philosophical realizations in which I became an atheist. Hopefully admitting to being a Christian at one point won't open the flood gates of “Haha, biased lying mutherf****r! CAUGHT YOU!” Calling people out for there mistakes is the standard in this community, if you don't mind me saying. If that's untrue well, hell maybe it is. Irregardless of my past, I have a potent knowledge of the bible. I would suggest reading it. (really good book by the way, no pun intended. Get it? Good book? Meh, I thought it was funny.)
However, instead of acting out against my past or religion I choose to accept other people's beliefs with a grain of salt. It's all about moderation with me and you cannot prove your argument by madcap rants. (lol, the hypocrisy.) - But, you cannot convince me otherwise of overtly evil acts and say they're good or that they're shady when they are clearly not.

This issue on equal rights just happens to be clear cut issue, if not morally ambiguous.

I believe Mikyala deserves equal rights under the law but as a republican I can't speak for everyone and tell them what to do. Doing so would be the reverse of democracy and will eventually lead to a form of dictatorship of free thought. In other words Danubus, I'm okay with you being a Christian and anti-trans gender. Mikayla, your lifestyle is morally ambiguous to me in the sense that, as a potential mental disease it can be considered morally good. You may argue with me and explain it like you did in IRC, make fun of me, label me a Homophobe, whatever. You attempted to explain your sexual nature in IRC and it sounded like absolute lunacy the way you defended your position. It was like a donkey attempting a conversation with a human. (You were the donkey in this case, and it was one of the few times I actually found you to be completely, incompetently, ineloquent. So thats saying a quite a bit.)
Now back to my main point. - You deserve equal rights like all others, but you cannot leave it at that. Because you are pushing an agenda. It's the very reason you still argue with me now. You instead attempt to infuse your beliefs with my own in an effort to justify your position. It just wont work.

You know I'm not strung up on kiddie sex and I just proved a point. You feel threatened. I understand.

Threatened? Not really. Mad as hell for people taking advantage of children for their own twisted needs? You bet. I can understand the philosophical nature of the question, that it is one sexual preference over another but that does not make it one bit less wrong in practice.

I figured you weren't threatened but I don't understand why you didn't respond this way originally. . . I'm glad you can understand the philosophical nature of the question because that is what it boils down too, philosophical ideology. Hence why religion conflicts with it so vastly in my opinion.One can argue that it's not taking advantage of anyone and the decision is made between to consenting adults, yes?

Pedophilia in my opinion is very wrong. Hence my belief in capital punishment for pedophilia. Used to live next to a pedophile in upper Michigan, creepy bugger fugly mutha, that. - But I'm getting off track here.

I'm glad you agree morals are not timeless. But do you consider good and evil to be timeless?

As far as I see it there is no good and evil, it is all about who is looking. Then of course there are people who can arguably be called evil but they all have been on the losers side of a conflict so it is hard to tell really. As general rule I do not believe in that kind of over-simplification, it is for Hollywood Movies, and not for real life.

Now Japanese, I'm not advocating state-sponsored discrimination. I'm advocating independent discrimination. I understand the morality behind it, and I'm not arguing this to defend holier then thou art Danubus. My question is, do you understand the morality behind it?

Yes, not that I would advocate any kind of discrimination but if I had to chose I would prefer the state to treat everyone equal and go from there. Maybe peoples views would change with new legislation as well?

They wont. The world is too diversified. Instead we should acknowledge this diversity instead of treating everyone “equal.” Treating everyone equal to the point where it becomes flawed serves no purpose. I'm not going to ignore undocumented illegal immigrants crossing our borders and bringing with them diseases as well as unknown criminal records that could be potentially damaging to health care and public safety and group them into the same pile as those that come here under legal means or as political refugees from war torn countries. Such as the Hmong that fled here to Minnesota. You can do a Google search on that. One goes undocumented and raises concerns despite the fact that they may also be fleeing oppressive governments or other financial reasons. i.e. Sending our money back to their country. One is applying for citizenship and is requesting amnesty. The other is potentially damaging our economic system. Now I know how you stand on illegal immigration. It's the product of the “psychotic” far right in Sweden. Know that what is the case for you, isn't necessarily the same case for us. We're a bigger country with a vast amounts of undocumented aliens here. You're roughly the size of well, California. Easier to manage. Look at us. We cant even get people to agree to one thing, that's how fucking abnormally diverse we are. It's a problem, we can't be equal. We don't know their criminal record and this country is just too big to bother finding them all through current flawed processes. I'm all for immigration. Come on over here everyone, it's a great place to live. It'sa invite you can all bunk with me. There are some types of discrimination that are perfectly fine with me.

I'm afraid you are completely wrong there Japan. If you mean the state has no right treating some more equal then others you're right. However, we both know you meant individuals. I'm afraid equality doesn't exist, not until it's eliminated through abstract blind liberalism, which you seem to whole heartily practice, or eliminated through conservative moral rights, which, I'm afraid to say, doesn't include our friend Danubus at all. . .

Blind liberalism? Who has been advocating that? Just because you are not laissez-fair-damn-everything-liberal does not mean you cannot avoid state discrimination. I am far from a neo-liberal mind you, rather a social-liberal (I am actually politically active in the socialdemocrat party in Sweden)

Every, single, liberal allows for the Laissez-faire style democracy in some form or another. They cast down what is morally good and uplift which is morally wrong. They do it in order to create a gray matted area in which there can be no right or wrong rather acknowledging the possibility of there being both as well as gray areas. I don't know if this is on purpose but it seems to exist on television, internets, liberal books, you name it.

Once morals are ambigious it becomes okay to let everything slide, or to socially "let do" to the point of being ridiculous. But despite the attempted destruction of morals people still have them, because they cannot be eliminated. You yourself, jeppan, have said that you allow for anything goes as far as sexuality, except children. I am not so ridged as to claim everything goes. I come to the realization of what could be potentially considered acceptable verse what isn't and it works for me. I shouldn't be dicated to by others. Least of all chumps like NickD and mxlm. I wouldn't wipe my arse with them, it would just make my rear dirtier.

At least these are my thoughts.

[mxlm]

'Relativism' is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperation freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on important topics are equally good. The philosophers who get called relativists are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought. - Richard Rorty

[HATEFACE]

'Relativism' is the view that every belief on a certain topic, or perhaps about any topic, is as good as every other. No one holds this view. Except for the occasional cooperation freshman, one cannot find anybody who says that two incompatible opinions on important topics are equally good. The philosophers who get called relativists are those who say that the grounds for choosing between such opinions are less algorithmic than had been thought. - Richard Rorty

Aha, clever. mxlm. You're so incorrigible, heh, get it? Anyway back to my sleep deprived discussion with Jeppan.

[Nyarlathotep]

Nyarlathotep wrote:
On the other hand this really isn't just an American issue; unless you happen to live in Denmark, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, or the State of Massachusetts your nation also engages in the same discriminatory practices.

NickD wrote:
*cough*

Unless it has been very recent everything I found for NZ says they recognize civil unions for homosexual partners but not marriage. That would place NZ in the seperate but equal boat and thus still discriminatory.

[Mikayla]

Helios, your tactic here appears to be to ascribe beliefs to me which I have not stated, to misstate what I have stated, and to bring in irrelevant arguments. For instance, you accuse me of trying to “obliterate” – but obliterate what? Have I said we should do away with religion? Have I said churches should be forced to open their doors to me or to allow same-sex marriage? No, I have not. And in fact, I would defend the church’s rights to believe what they believe. All I ask is that the secular government which serves all of us, regardless of which religion we are or are not, treats all of us equally and does not treat us differently based upon the religious beliefs of one group.

In short – I am not arguing against religion. I am arguing for equality in the secular law. As for reading Bible verses – I have. I have also read the Koran, I have researched Shinto, and I’ve done a little reading and research into Buddhism as well (my girlfriend being a former Buddhist).

Helios:

So Danubus isn't extreme?

I never said that – this is another attempt by you to ascribe to me things I have not said. I don’t believe I said Dan WAS extreme either.

Helios:

Your rights are being limited, but not all of them. Seeing yourself as the victim and fully oppressed by the state makes you appear a tad extreme by some. If you want to gather your group and riot, then go ahead. Civil strife is another way to bring about change.

And another attempt to misstate what I’ve said – I never said I was “fully oppressed by the state” and in my first response to you I acknowledged several of the rights I do enjoy. You are arguing against things I never said to make your job debating me easier.

As for some of my rights being limited but not all of them, that’s fairly close to the situation – its also characterizes the situation faced by blacks in the south during the Jim Crow period – they had some rights, but not all of them. Were they wrong to seek their civil rights? Were they extremists? No, of course not, they were human beings who wanted justice. Seeking justice is not extreme – its natural.

Helios:

HELLO YOU ARE WRONG. "In the real world," nice use there Mikayla. Everything is a battle with you and I feel sorry that you're always on the offensive. The vast majority of the people are not evil, you're correct, but evil does exist.

I never said evil did not exist – I just said YOU were not evil and that the vast majority of people are not evil. Once again, you misstate what I have said and attempt to build your argument on your fallacious interpretation of my position.

Helios:

So what are we Mikayla?

Who is “we”? Republicans? Christians? Republican Christians? Conservative Republican Christians? Neo-Conservative Republican Christians? Homophobes? Transphobes? Who?

Helios:

You're entitled to your opinion Mikyala. and it's in my own opinion, Mikayla. That you are smart, wise, haughty, narcissistic, cruel, "edit" and forgot elitist. I just want you to know that despite everything you've said, you've not changed my mind about you and your mind has not been changed about me. Everything has come full circle. Is this a fair assessment to make?

I don’t engage you in these conversations to change your mind Helios. I don’t engage in these conversations to change anyone’s mind who has already developed a strong opinion on the subject. If it happens, well, great. But its not my goal.

Helios:

You may ask, what does it matter what one random person on NWN thinks? What difference does it make?

Mulu advocates talking with your “enemy” in an attempt to meet a common ground. What good does it do when neither side is willing to give?

I am perfectly willing to give – as mentioned many times I am fine with Dan and other Christian folks believing what they will. I am fine with getting told by the Catholic Priests at my great-aunt’s funeral that I cannot take communion because I am living in sin. That’s their choice and their belief and their religion. But . . . our government should not favor their beliefs over mine. Unlike them, I am not advocating restricting anyone’s rights – I want equal rights, not superior rights. If I get my way, I will be able to marry my partner, get health care, etc. but no one on the conservative Christian side will lose any rights. If the conservative Christian side gets their way, I will continue to have fewer rights in this country than they do. That is inequality; that is discrimination. The compromise is to make the citizens of the country equal and not elevate anyone group over the other.

[HATEFACE]

Nyarlathotep wrote:
On the other hand this really isn't just an American issue; unless you happen to live in Denmark, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, or the State of Massachusetts your nation also engages in the same discriminatory practices.

NickD wrote:
*cough*

Unless it has been very recent everything I found for NZ says they recognize civil unions for homosexual partners but not marriage. That would place NZ in the separate but equal boat and thus still discriminatory.

I hear NZ is purdy, I would like to go there one day.

but um, it recognizes civil unions. What is New Zealand's take on taxes for sexual minorities? Does it go beyond that? Are there separate fountains, toilets, and doctors for homosexuals? If a homosexual gets injured, does he have to get blood from another homosexual?
Do they have separate but equal schools?

Forgive me for the cynical comments but it's my opinion that the sexual apartheid isn't as bad as racial ones.

Yes, it's probable likelihood, it is discriminatory.

straight appearing white male, and as such I believe you have a sense of entitlement.

I already am entitled. I live in the greatest country in the world and I have done a great service to it just like you have! After all, isn't the greatest republican statement, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country?" (It is a republican statement said by a great democrat.) In that sense, we've both done our part. Yet to what degree, doesn't really matter. . .

My life isn't as exciting or complicated as yours. I'm sorry that it isn't constantly wrought with discrimination and hate. I know how you want everything to be equal so you need to call out how mundane my life is in an effort to justify your position in society. I will still state my opinion of you and I'll do it loudly with capital letters if need be.

But for all this, you've only yourself to blame, and deep inside, you know it. And it makes you mad - and so you take it out on the others around you, which, since you don't get out, is us in ALFA. And yourself - your self-deprecating posts above give evidence to it.

And this is the democratic censorship. "GET OUT YOU NORMAL PERSON FOR STATING YOUR OPINION! YOU'RE BAD JUST LIKE ME, BOO! HOooo!"
It's not obvious, but it's there. Do not tell me in Hollywood, "Cali-FORN-ya!" that people don't lose jobs because of their political stance. It is after all, a liberal place and doesn't practice what it preaches. I'm abrasive, rude, and crude and it fucking offends you. Good. Deal with it.

I want you to know that I am an artist Mikayla and as a artist I work with as liberal as liberal can get. Our political discussions don't get anywhere because it boils down to childish arguments, mostly due in part to the whinny liberals that I work with who just get mad if other people don't share their Neo-liberal totalitarian and O' so Orwellian view of the world. You all are exactly the same way. You're right, I started off being a jerk and a complete douche-bag first of all, because I've dealt with your whinny immature nature before. Call it a preemptive ass-hat ploy to disable your eventual downfall and final stand with jackass comments.

As for my self-depricating humor. I'm a tad Finnish, try not to hold that against me.[/quote]

[Mulu]

Well, I get often the opposite impression. Often certain positions or actions of these advocacy groups do more to hurt their cause then help.

What, exactly, are you refering to? Pridemarches?

Oh, I can't even recall off-hand. All I know is I've seen certain things over the years and thought "Y'know, I'm supportive of your platform and all but that probably is a bad way of getting your point across."

They shouldn't have to be asking permission to be treated fairly in the first place.

So what are we Mikayla?

You are obviously Right Wing Authoritarians.
A high degree of submission to authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives; a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities; a high degree of adherence to the social conventions endorsed by society and by its established authorities.

"It is acceptable to be cruel to those who do not follow the rules."

Mulu advocates talking with your “enemy” in an attempt to meet a common ground. What good does it do when neither side is willing to give?

At least you will then know what you are fighting about, but I personally don't believe that people are ever truly unwilling to change their position.

May I ask how you would all intend to abolish war?

That's not the type of subject that is amenable to a quick post in a gaming forum. I actually think we're headed for more conflict in the future, due to global warming reducing necessary resources like fresh water and arable soil. Still, here's the short answer: To abolish war, you would have to change mankind. We would have to evolve culturally and probably even biologically into a more community and egalitarian minded species. This is possible, but it certainly won't be easy, or even guaranteed to happen. I give the human species about one chance in five of evolving to a better state rather than self-destruct, on a good day.

[Mikayla]

Helios:

"GET OUT YOU NORMAL PERSON FOR STATING YOUR OPINION! YOU'RE BAD JUST LIKE ME, BOO! HOooo!"

Once again, not something I said. My suggestion that you get out of chat and go get a real life was not for my benefit, but for yours.

Helios:

I'm abrasive, rude, and crude and it Ƥøا offends you. Good. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it. That you like offending me says a lot about you and how angry you are.

Helios:

I want you to know that I am an artist Mikayla and as a artist I work with as liberal as liberal can get. Our political discussions don't get anywhere because it boils down to childish arguments, mostly due in part to the whinny liberals that I work with who just get mad if other people don't share their Neo-liberal totalitarian and O' so Orwellian view of the world. You all are exactly the same way. You're right, I started off being a jerk and a complete douche-bag first of all, because I've dealt with your whinny immature nature before. Call it a preemptive ass-hat ploy to disable your eventual downfall and final stand with jackass comments.

I do not believe I am facing an eventual downfall Helios. Over the last 6 years transgender people have gained more rights than they have ever had despite the conservative domination of the Federal Government. On this front, the momentum is in the direction of civil rights, though Bush is doing what he can to slow it, and I believe we will prevail. The folks facing a downfall are folks like you - just like the racist folks of 40 and 50 years ago who opposed civil rights for non-whites, and the sexist folks who opposed women's suffrage, and so on. Thats the side you are on - and that side has been losing, albeit slowly, for 140 years.

[mxlm]

I think he meant your downfall would be due to, um, your whiny and immature nature. Since, ah, liberals are all alike, and those he works with are incapable of forming coherent arguments, logically you must be incapable of forming a coherent argument.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, apparently.

[Mikayla]

mxlm:

I think he meant your downfall would be due to, um, your whiny and immature nature. Since, ah, liberals are all alike, and those he works with are incapable of forming coherent arguments, logically you must be incapable of forming a coherent argument.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, apparently.

Ahhh...I see. Odd that, as it contradicts his earlier statements about my debate abilities, but no matter. Thanks mxlm.

[Mulu]

mxlm:

I think he meant your downfall would be due to, um, your whiny and immature nature. Since, ah, liberals are all alike, and those he works with are incapable of forming coherent arguments, logically you must be incapable of forming a coherent argument.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, apparently.

Ahhh...I see. Odd that, as it contradicts his earlier statements about my debate abilities, but no matter. Thanks mxlm.

Actually it's perfectly natural for RWA's.

1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Hold contradictory ideas leading them to ‘speak out of both sides of their mouths.’

[mxlm]

Well, this is the guy who just wrote that 'there is no good and evil' and then proceeded to castigate liberals because they 'cast down what is morally good and uplift which is morally wrong...in order to creat a gray matted area in which there can be no right or wrong rather than akcnowleding the possibility of there being both as well as gray areas' (sic)

Probably not worth debating, truth be told. A shame we don't have more intelligent and articulate conservative types here. Cipher counts, but he's pretty much it.

[HATEFACE]

Well, this is the guy who just wrote that 'there is no good and evil' and then proceeded to castigate liberals because they 'cast down what is morally good and uplift which is morally wrong...in order to creat a gray matted area in which there can be no right or wrong rather than akcnowleding the possibility of there being both as well as gray areas' (sic)

Probably not worth debating, truth be told. A shame we don't have more intelligent and articulate conservative types here. Cipher counts, but he's pretty much it.

You all are fucking assholes and there is too many to debate against. You pick appart everything that I say in order to prove a point. The point being you guys are absolute Pricks with a capital P.

Mikayla. Again you ignore what I have said several times. You're arguing against a misinterpreted redundant nomenclature on your part. Thus you fail miserably at insight and understanding. Allow me to clarify, “Your rights are being limited but not all of them” This is true and applies to you “Seeing yourself as the victim and fully oppressed by the state makes you appear a tad extreme by some.” This is also true, but doesn't apply to you. “If you want to gather your group and riot then go ahead. Civil Strife is another way to bring about change: True, and it doesn't apply to you, at least not that I know of. You don't go about setting fires and rioting do you?!? ;p

As for some of my rights being limited but not all of them, that’s fairly close to the situation – its also characterizes the situation faced by blacks in the south during the Jim Crow period – they had some rights, but not all of them. Were they wrong to seek their civil rights? Were they extremists? No, of course not, they were human beings who wanted justice. Seeking justice is not extreme – its natural.

Heh. You never cease to amaze me Mikayla. Absolutely amazing. . .
Yes, they were considered extremists at the time by mostly southern states. Public opinion can change and always has. I don't know if you realize this, I probably think you don't, but acceptance of homosexuality has actually risen! It's shocking I know, chew on it and tell me what you think.

Care to elaborate on the history of Jim Crow and the founding of the NAACP?

Debating you has become a lot easier when you realize that a simpleton of a blue collar't uneducarated joe totally pwnz y00 in arguments even though you, and jeppan totally at being politically motivated and oh so educated. I guess it must be my way of venting my blue'callart unejumacated rage at you because I totally fail at life.

Wanna know what Mikayla? I've stated pretty much everything I can at this point. Now it's becoming rather annoying and is actually adding my argument against liberalism. I've said what I had to say several times and this circle jerk continues. So we're done. Talk amongst yourselves liberals and feel absolutely proud in the fact that you held so well against your average if not poor republican party crone.” Oh, also Mxlm, read some books and grow some independent thought there buddy. Stop regurgitating liberalism from college professors. Are you still in college? It's my assumption that you are.

So what I'm trying to say, is, you guys win again. Pat each other on the back and get back to the jerking each other off.

[HATEFACE]

I think he meant your downfall would be due to, um, your whiny and immature nature. Since, ah, liberals are all alike, and those he works with are incapable of forming coherent arguments, logically you must be incapable of forming a coherent argument.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, apparently.

You twist my words its only appropriate that I twist yours. I think that's fair.

[HATEFACE]

mxlm:

I think he meant your downfall would be due to, um, your whiny and immature nature. Since, ah, liberals are all alike, and those he works with are incapable of forming coherent arguments, logically you must be incapable of forming a coherent argument.

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, apparently.

Ahhh...I see. Odd that, as it contradicts his earlier statements about my debate abilities, but no matter. Thanks mxlm.

Actually it's perfectly natural for RWA's.

1: Faulty reasoning — RWAs are more likely to:

Make many incorrect inferences from evidence.
Hold contradictory ideas leading them to ‘speak out of both sides of their mouths.’

To be fair I'm cruel to everyone, you liberals not wtihstanding.