Curse

DarkNecrid · Nov 02, 2008, 09:38 AM // 09:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abedeus

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aX...eature=related

Well said, Jack.

As for you, Americans...

FOR ONCE YOU WILL HAVE AN IDIOT FOR A VICE PRESIDENT! MUWAHAHAH!

You will understand why Poland hates it's presidents and (ex-, now, thank God) vice-presidents.

You're kidding yourself if you think McCain will actually win. <.<

Quote:

Ron Paul.

Hope for America.

No. Just no.

Quote:

I'd say the US is more sexually obsessed than repressed.

And yeah, this thread is getting closed.

We're obsessed because we're repressed majorly, and that's being obsessed for the wrong reasons. We're one of the most repressed countries in the world next to Third World Countries which circumsize women so they can't experience any pleasure at all.

Master Fuhon · Nov 02, 2008, 06:41 PM // 18:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

We're obsessed because we're repressed majorly, and that's being obsessed for the wrong reasons. We're one of the most repressed countries in the world next to Third World Countries which circumsize women so they can't experience any pleasure at all.

Sex ed in RI was about the same as you had: body diagrams, diseases, and talk about risky behavior. I don't see how more gets to the root of any problems. It's just throwing money at symptoms of a problem, and politicians love to tell you that solves everything (it gets them re-elected). But I'm glad it didn't involve someone trying to influece my beliefs about sex.

The way I see people, I don't see us as being able to compartmentalize parts of ourselves enough to be 'sexually repressed', so I think this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. Freuds theories of sexual repression were based on an entire view of humans as always acting based on sex. He theorized that we were completely sexualized beings, almost every decision we made was based on sex. Based on his theories, there would be primal sexual urges behind everything we did. Repression ends up taking on a more dominant aspect of the personality, overflowing into other things. This idea that Europe is less sexually repressed is developed around the idea that sex is most important. I would try to look closer at what Europe is.

Americans are more likely emotionally repressed, and sexual function is only a side effect of that. People are having sex while not experiencing the emotions attached with sex, so I don't understand how the solution is more sex talk. People don't need more terrible, unfulfilling sexual experience. We don't experience our own emotions, we experience the emotions others want us to feel. Sexualized media wants you to think about sex. It's been show that decision making ability degrades by a certain percentage when thinking about sex. This is why when you gamble you have women thrown in your face. When you buy stuff you have sex thrown in your face. Someone else is influencing your thinking, until you screen out the intrusions or learn your own emotions. Media isn't just developed by know-nothings, people have trained psychologists figuring out exactly to influence the people they want to influence. This is what presidential campaigns are all about, stirring up emotions you didn't know you had if you were repressed.

I see emotional repression contributing to poor function of logic, which is why I figure girls are surpassing boys in academics. Women had been taught it's ok to be emotional, men are about not being emotional. Emotions are repressed for reasons thought to benefit: you must dominate and defeat others to win competition. Why do men like porn more than women? Porn is violent and porn is done with 'actors'; and there is very little emotion to porn. People who aren't emotionally repressed are disgusted by most American porn. Americans love football and violent sports more than anyone else. The only way you can do that is with successful emotional repression. American comedies are making fun of the misfortune of others, sometimes even laughing at violence.

So as to the discussion about putting more pressure on schools to make everyone understand everything: the country is based on survival of the fittest. Independent party candidates don't stand a chance in elections because they haven't proven to be the dominant candidate. The way things are set up, you act in your own best interest and you get your dreams to come true that way. It's built on the belief that self-motivating people are the strongest, and everyone else can sink. That's where the repression appears.

Faer · Nov 02, 2008, 07:25 PM // 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by DarkNecrid

No. Just no.

no u

RP RP RP RP RP RP

Evil Neato · Nov 02, 2008, 11:46 PM // 23:46

Quote:

> I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small

That's where I stopped reading. Religion has no place in politics, I don't give a damn what magic juju they believe in.

mrmango · Nov 03, 2008, 12:10 AM // 00:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Neato

That's where I stopped reading. Religion has no place in politics, I don't give a damn what magic juju they believe in.

Good stop-reading point. lol @ magic juju

Just keep religion out of politics.

grottoftl · Nov 03, 2008, 12:29 AM // 00:29

it'll be better to stop religious influence from politics, education, science, medical research, etc. it's only holding us back and preventing us from progressing forward. I believe religion should be practice privately

Master Fuhon · Nov 03, 2008, 01:57 AM // 01:57

I'm guessing your plan to remove religion is a major lobotomy of every politician. There is no distinction by the brain where belief system ties into religion. Christian, Socialist, Atheist, Capitalist, Materialist... these are all beliefs. Someone could claim to believe in a God, and then say that earth is out of his jurisdiction so he can do whatever he wants. Someone could believe in no God, and yet pray to trinkets and hold good luck charms. It's hard to find two people who have the exact same belief system. You aren't going to find anyone with a clean separation of beliefs who can think.

Maybe you want a society intolerant to religion? How about the atheistic leadership of Joseph Stalin? He saw an opening in religious belief where he found out he could get people to worship him, since there was no God.

So the solution to religious intolerance is to be intolerant against religion? Have fun joining in the holy war of nonstop killing. Religious belief has never been the problem, anti-belief is, believing that everyone should follow one 'true' view.

Evil Neato · Nov 03, 2008, 02:40 AM // 02:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

I'm guessing your plan to remove religion is a major lobotomy of every politician. There is no distinction by the brain where belief system ties into religion. Christian, Socialist, Atheist, Capitalist, Materialist... these are all beliefs. Someone could claim to believe in a God, and then say that earth is out of his jurisdiction so he can do whatever he wants. Someone could believe in no God, and yet pray to trinkets and hold good luck charms. It's hard to find two people who have the exact same belief system. You aren't going to find anyone with a clean separation of beliefs who can think.

Maybe you want a society intolerant to religion? How about the atheistic leadership of Joseph Stalin? He saw an opening in religious belief where he found out he could get people to worship him, since there was no God.

So the solution to religious intolerance is to be intolerant against religion? Have fun joining in the holy war of nonstop killing. Religious belief has never been the problem, anti-belief is, believing that everyone should follow one 'true' view.

Do you honestly believe any of that rubbish you just typed?

Religion should be out of politics; not the world. By all means, people should believe in whatever they'd like, and they should express it however they'd like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

But when it comes to politics, it just needs to gtfo.

Someone's belief in a divine (or not) should have absolutely no bearing on their political beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. They are dependent and totally irrelevant. It's even in the constitution to separate church and state.

So, if you start a letter with "I'm a born-again Christian. . ." do you think you would get the same response if you started with "I serve the Dark Lord. . ."

No, of course you wouldn't. Heck, half the people would probably think you were joking...

The point is, announcing a religion within the political sphere alienates people, where they really shouldn't even have to worry about it since religion isn't even supposed to be part of our political engine in the first place.

You can say Stalin all you want, but if you want to get into that then there's just as many religious fringe groups that have done much worse. Not to mention something relevant in current events... War Against Terror anyone?

Die killing infidels for your 72 virgins, step right up... Yeah, religion is really helping right there.

You could go back and forth all day with religion being good or bad. But that isn't even on the chopping block. Nobody would win that discussion.

Religion shouldn't be a part of politics. It's in the constitution, it's black and white, and I don't really even see how you can argue against it unless you want a theocracy.

DarkNecrid · Nov 03, 2008, 03:08 AM // 03:08

Quote:

Religion should be out of politics; not the world. By all means, people should believe in whatever they'd like, and they should express it however they'd like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Too bad 78+% of America is Christian and beliefs in Christian family values and so inevitably in a system where the majority rules Christian beliefs become very important to the point that anyone who does anything not Christian (like say, making gay marriage legal) won't get elected. At all. I agree with you btw, but America is not Europe and that is too much of a big step to be asking for.

Master Fuhon · Nov 03, 2008, 03:38 AM // 03:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Neato

Religion should be out of politics; not the world. By all means, people should believe in whatever they'd like, and they should express it however they'd like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

But when it comes to politics, it just needs to gtfo.

Someone's belief in a divine (or not) should have absolutely no bearing on their political beliefs. They are not mutually exclusive. They are dependent and totally irrelevant. It's even in the constitution to separate church and state.

What is the plan for getting religion out of politics? Is it a process of getting the religion out of the person? Because if someone has a religion, those beliefs are going to influence thinking naturally. So belief in a deity is bad, but I can worship material objects? I can rub that bull in front of Wall St. every time I want to for good luck? You have a system of getting religion out of politics that sounds like only allowing those who don't believe in a deity.

And furthermore, you want to see this practiced at the state and city level throughout the entire country? And by out of politics, do you mean people of religious nature cannot lobby politicians for things? If people we know are Christians ask for a road built in their town do you play judge and determine whether this has religious motivation behind it? If you find out the damaged road only leads to a church do you refuse to help?

Do you know what morals are? They are beliefs. Some morals have ties with religious belief. Saying stealing is wrong is a value judgment. The moral systems that we follow as part of law are part of certain religious ethic systems. These are man-made laws, that originated out of religion. Do you purge all political practice that originated from religion?

In crisis, do you not empathize with the country because you aren't allowed to pray? If people ask you to pray to comfort them, do you refuse? Or do you lose rights to practice religion publicly once you get elected in office?

"Let's take religion out of politics" sounds like rhetoric without answers to questions similar to any of the above. Or more dangerously, you are describing nation sponsored atheism instead of separation of church and state. This issue is tied up in so many other issues that the well-defined lines you claim to see aren't there.

Added: Do you choose to fund support programs (for help with addictions, abuse, etc) based on affiliation with religion?

I Is Special · Nov 03, 2008, 03:58 AM // 03:58

^^^^^^^^ I actually got pissed off while reading that post because every other sentence was a question.

And Evil Neato- I love you.

Master Fuhon · Nov 03, 2008, 04:35 AM // 04:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by I Is Special

^^^^^^^^ I actually got pissed off while reading that post because every other sentence was a question.

And Evil Neato- I love you.

You know who gets pissed when you ask them questions: Politicians running for office and people with poorly thought out belief systems (fundamentalists).

In defense of the questions, I could have just told Evil the talk was all rhetoric and a waste of time. But the questions are there to give an easier way out.

Winterclaw · Nov 03, 2008, 05:24 AM // 05:24

It's impossible to remove religion from politics, if you try to remove spiritual religions secular ones will move in and replace them. Besides, historically in places like Babylon and Isreal after the Jews escaped from Egypt it was religion which was at least part of the reason for setting up a codified group of laws. If you remove the repersentation of people of religion, it'll become easier for the state to abuse the religions.

Let me put it like this, in the US constitution it says there should be no law respecting an establishment of religion, so a law banning religion from politics would actually be a law establishing religion, in this case atheism.

Turbobusa · Nov 03, 2008, 06:23 AM // 06:23

It's not atheism, it's Laïcité \o/
just before someone tells me it's the same:
"A believer and promoter of 'laïcité' is a 'laic' who may or may not be an atheist"
ya

Evil Genius · Nov 03, 2008, 06:39 AM // 06:39

I didn't read the whole email because it was poorly formatted, but got the general gist. This article sums up my opinions: Sam Harris on Palin over at Newsweek. I encourage you to read it.

Evil Neato · Nov 03, 2008, 08:16 AM // 08:16

So, just to get a grasp of reality here... Did you actually read anything?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

What is the plan for getting religion out of politics? Is it a process of getting the religion out of the person? Because if someone has a religion, those beliefs are going to influence thinking naturally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Neato

Religion should be out of politics; not the world. By all means, people should believe in whatever they'd like, and they should express it however they'd like as long as it doesn't hurt others.

Oh look, I already answered you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

So belief in a deity is bad, but I can worship material objects? I can rub that bull in front of Wall St. every time I want to for good luck? You have a system of getting religion out of politics that sounds like only allowing those who don't believe in a deity.

And furthermore, you want to see this practiced at the state and city level throughout the entire country? And by out of politics, do you mean people of religious nature cannot lobby politicians for things? If people we know are Christians ask for a road built in their town do you play judge and determine whether this has religious motivation behind it? If you find out the damaged road only leads to a church do you refuse to help?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Neato

That's where I stopped reading. Religion has no place in politics, I don't give a damn what magic juju they believe in.

What's that? I already answered you again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

In crisis, do you not empathize with the country because you aren't allowed to pray? If people ask you to pray to comfort them, do you refuse? Or do you lose rights to practice religion publicly once you get elected in office?

"Let's take religion out of politics" sounds like rhetoric without answers to questions similar to any of the above. Or more dangerously, you are describing nation sponsored atheism instead of separation of church and state. This issue is tied up in so many other issues that the well-defined lines you claim to see aren't there.

Added: Do you choose to fund support programs (for help with addictions, abuse, etc) based on affiliation with religion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Neato

The point is, announcing a religion within the political sphere alienates people, where they really shouldn't even have to worry about it since religion isn't even supposed to be part of our political engine in the first place.

Do I even have to type anything else..? Fail less imo.

Here, I'll actually do you the benefit of typing something, when it isn't even needed:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

Do you know what morals are? They are beliefs. Some morals have ties with religious belief. Saying stealing is wrong is a value judgment. The moral systems that we follow as part of law are part of certain religious ethic systems. These are man-made laws, that originated out of religion. Do you purge all political practice that originated from religion?

All dogs are animals. All cats are animals. So, some dogs are definitely cats?

Good logic, good logic...

Religion has nothing to do with morality. Do you think murder, rape and stealing are considered bad simply because of a religious belief? Or do you think there are some things we as people inherently choose to be morally unsound? Don't think --- it's the latter.

It isn't religion, it's morality. There's a huge difference.

No holy text that I know of says no sex until 18, no drinking until 21... Yet they are laws. Sure, I suppose a lot say "do not murder" and "do not steal." But those are just basic human morality, it has nothing to do with religion.

Laws and dogmatic beliefs aren't even close to similar. Sure, some may by coincidence be the same. But there happens to be a reason why there's a law saying that you can't murder someone, and not a law saying you can make a ritualistic human sacrifice to appease the flying spaghetti monster. It isn't that the majority of the country has always been Judeo-Christian; it's morality, and the difference between a law based on morality and a law based on some mystical entity telling you something is right or wrong.

As I said before: By all means, anyone should believe in whatever they want. I don't care what they do or don't believe in. Religion should not be associated with politics. People can be religious in their personal lives; not in their political lives.

Nobody should be making decisions based on the presence or absence of any religion. Anyone can be a blind sheep. We're electing leaders! These people should be able to think for themselves, and if they can think for themselves then they don't need to claim to a religion. They can support their religion with their belief system, and when questioned they will have to support their beliefs with logic, and not "because x says so." If anyone can't do that, then maybe they should be questioning their beliefs to begin with.

We aren't talking about beliefs of the origin of mankind or the creation of the universe. We're talking about politics and legislation. You don't need to explain your belief of creationism for that, and you don't need to explain your magic juju to anyone. They are making laws, and if you want to make a law all you need to explain is your law. If a law can't stand by itself without having to say it's right because a deity said it was right, then maybe it shouldn't be a law, huh?

This isn't even the problem. The problem is that politicians promote a religion, and it's largely due to the fact that if people know their religion, the majority voters will not vote for them if they are not among the same religion. That's not right... That isn't what America was founded on. We were founded on freedom of religion, that's the entire reason we originally left Great Brittan in the first place. A person shouldn't get a vote because they have the same religious belief as the majority of voters, they should get a vote because what they say and what they do is morally sound and correct with human morality, and actions are made in good judgment with logic. Religion isn't needed for that, and to be quite honest... I'm terrified to think that some leaders actually pray to a deity for a solution to a problem, rather than getting a team of people to figure out a solution to said problem. There's faith, and then there's stupidity.

Master Fuhon · Nov 03, 2008, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

It's impossible to remove religion from politics, if you try to remove spiritual religions secular ones will move in and replace them. Besides, historically in places like Babylon and Isreal after the Jews escaped from Egypt it was religion which was at least part of the reason for setting up a codified group of laws. If you remove the repersentation of people of religion, it'll become easier for the state to abuse the religions.

Let me put it like this, in the US constitution it says there should be no law respecting an establishment of religion, so a law banning religion from politics would actually be a law establishing religion, in this case atheism.

Exactly. This isn't a beauty pageant where we all wish for world peace. We have to talk about things that can and can't happen. I would like to see corruption removed from politics. But I don't have solid plans to remove corruption from politics, I see it as always being there.

The simple solution for getting rid of political corruptness is to just replace everyone in government. This temporarily solves the surface issue. But if we get rid of it, it finds it's way back somehow. This is how my argument is congruent with my belief system. I want smaller government, I want these corrupt people doing less. So I vote Republican on the grounds of shrinking government. Simple as that, if you are talking about adding more government programs, I want to know specifics on how corruption will be kept away before I agree. If your problem is religion being involved, again I think smaller government is the answer.

And by the way, George W. Bush is not a conservative because he doesn't want to shrink government. He's what you get when you mix ideologies and don't pay attention to contradictions. He's what you get when you don't think about a belief system or don't ask questions about it.

MMSDome · Nov 03, 2008, 07:35 PM // 19:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

Vote John McCain;

Corpse we can believe in.

What a dumb email, prisoner of war = president material? What about the fact that he's almost dead? What about Palin? If you ignore the fact that he could die in office, WHAT ABOUT PALIN? She's about the most terrible choice for any position of power, ever. Her alone should (and probably is) make everyone vote for Obama.

The argument that John McCain is a weak one as people thought the same about Ronald Reagan when he was being elected for his second term and he turned out to be one the greatest Presidents ever.

Barack Obama has just as great a chance of being assassinated as John McCain does dying of old age.

ADDED: As much as all of you would like to believe religion should stay out of politics it won't. Our country was founded on religious views, hence why our country was founded UNDER GOD.

wetsparks · Nov 03, 2008, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by MMSDome

The argument that John McCain is a weak one as people thought the same about Ronald Reagan when he was being elected for his second term and he turned out to be one the greatest Presidents ever.

Barack Obama has just as great a chance of being assassinated as John McCain does dying of old age.

ADDED: As much as all of you would like to believe religion should stay out of politics it won't. Our country was founded on religious views, hence why our country was founded UNDER GOD.

And since Obama is a black man he also has a higher chance of stroke or heart attack, combine that with the most stressful job in the world.....

wetsparks · Nov 03, 2008, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Genius

I didn't read the whole email because it was poorly formatted, but got the general gist. This article sums up my opinions: Sam Harris on Palin over at Newsweek. I encourage you to read it.

I've read the first page of that so far and I think the writer and the editor should be fired. To think that such ignorance is allowed to be published is sickening, especially from a big outlet like Newsweek. I'll post more after I read the other three pages.

After reading the last three pages I sincerely want to vomit. If people like that guy support Obama, then I definitely want McCain to win.