Search Results - SC2 Mafia
Register

Search:

Type: Posts; User: Ganelon

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4

Search: Search took 0.26 seconds.

  1. Replies
    2,851
    Views
    13,814

    Sticky: ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    Please cut it with the personal insults. This is your first and final warning.
  2. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Nuclear Apocalypse

    Thread Author:Ganelon

    Post Author:Ganelon

    Replies
    2
    Views
    27

    ►►Re: Nuclear Apocalypse◄◄

    In fact if my math is right 35 CM of water would be enough for a person to spend around 1-4 days without risk of radiation sickness or severe long term effects. You need 7 cm of water to halve radiation. So a layer of 70 cm would essentially allow indefinite human habitation (it would increase the risk of cancer, but hey)
  3. Forum:Serious Discussion & Debate

    Thread:Nuclear Apocalypse

    Thread Author:Ganelon

    Post Author:Ganelon

    Replies
    2
    Views
    27

    ►►Nuclear Apocalypse◄◄

    So if you look at 80-90% of fiction out there, thereís this idea that people would survive after a nuclear apocalypse in bunkers. And a strange thought occurred to me. Bunkers are solid targets that you can bombard with multiple nuclear missiles. No matter how sturdy a bunker is, shooting tens or even hundreds of missiles at it will bring it down.

    So: why wouldnít you instead invest in building submarines capable of holding hundreds of people and maybe some frozen eggs in stasis? You could even grow your food via artificial meat and recycle your air, and you can get drinking water from processing salt water. If all else fails, you can just organize regular fishing trips (water is a very good radiation shield and if you go deep enough - perhaps even 200-300 m would be enough - you can avoid pretty much all of the fallout indefinitely, waiting for radiation levels to decline to tolerable levels). Assuming that no cobalt-thorium bombs are used, you really only need to stay put for around 6 months - after which you could start repopulating the Earth. With cobalt thorium bombs (which I believe no country would use), youíd need to stay out for 50 years. Current submarines can go without fuel resupply for nearly 25 years. All youíd need to do is give a submarine twice the usual amount of uranium fuel and youíd be set (as long as you could either a) fish, or b) grow food).
    submarines also have the advantage of being quite sturdy - nothing short of an underwater collision (or another submarine, or a mine, or a depth charge) is going to sink it.

    TL;DR Bunkers suck, submarines are dope.
  4. Replies
    2,851
    Views
    13,814

    Sticky: ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by S-FM Quinne View Post
    @S-FM Magellan Core

    If the end of the game.

    Its 3 players day

    1 mafia
    1 citizen
    1 vigilante with 1 shot left

    And the citizen is lynched.

    Do town win because the vigi can shoot the mafia or maifa since its down to 2 players?
    Iíll get back to you on that. But most likely the Town would win
  5. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Anyways if the Union had really cared about blacks they wouldnít have founded the American Colonizatjon Society. Even ignoring the way Liberia turned out, you canít kick your citizens from your country just because theyíre of a different skin colour.
  6. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I think itís simple really: the South was racist, AND they used racism as an excuse for slavery.
    The North was racist but they were industrialized and didnít need slaves. Why do you think the north abolished slavery very early on (with New York abolishing it in 1792, if Iím not mistaken).
  7. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Never said the North wasn't evil in fact I have made several posts indicating the opposite. If you choose to interpret that I have the stance that the North is morally superior and can't be evil after I have said numerous times they weren't then that's on you, not me. I'm not here to argue every half degree, intricate variable of the civil war. I have said my purpose time and time again, you cannot separate the abolishment sentiment that predominantly came from Northern states from why the South seceded. I think I have said this at least 5 times now. Literally go read the thread again if you think I am propping the North up on some false moral platform.

    You and Ganelon can run off on tangents all you want but I will keep bringing up the point that Ganelon tries to stray from.
    Iím not sure who youíre arguing with here. Both of us agreed that the South was evil; we simply stated that the North as, as well.
  8. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    I can't understand how you logic yourself into such a position. You admit that the war was about slavery, and for the north the war was about keeping the union intact. Yet the whole reason the south started the war by seceding was because they wanted to keep slaves. If the north didn't care about slaves then why the fuck didn't they just keep slavery legal and end the whole thing immediately lmao. Or just not start it in the first place.
    Good question. The political climate at the start of the war was such that it is possible the South wouldnít just have surrendered and asked to be welcomed back into the Union. It was not inconceivable to them that the North wouldíve abolished slavery in their territories anyhow. I had something else to say but I forgot what it was soooooo
  9. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Fair point. But I believe people have beliefs as they are convenient to them. My favorite recent day story comes from Oxford where the students launched a climate change protest and demanded the college stopped its use and investments in fossil fuels. The dean responded by offering to shut off the gas powered heat as a step in that direction which some people asked the dean if that was provocative. He responded "You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope; It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement"

    Saying "I want healthcare" once you are sick is easy but being told to pay into it while you are healthy is not taken well
    Saying "Give tax money to this cause" is easy until that money is coming out of your pocket

    People want the benefit or to benefit the cause they care about but if you ask them to pay for what they want they will usually jump to ATE or a red herring. Sure they want homeless people to have a home but ask them to take one into the room next to their teenage daughter? Then its no longer convenient to have such a belief and they will fight it harder than they ever would have supported homeless housing.
    Oh, absolutely. Such people do exist. Iím thinking that people are opportunistic with their belief system (a fact they are probably aware of on some preter-conscious level). I believe that there are also genuine ideologues who flock to a belief system simply because they donít have anything else in their lives. This group naturally overlaps with the opportunists you described, so Iím not sure how you separate them.

    Or maybe Iím wrong and there is no difference between the two groups and rabid ideologues are just holding on to ideologies that they believe wonít kill them, and their belief system then is simply a tool - not something they truly believe in, deep town.
  10. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Let me rephrase this:
    For the north, the war was about secession and keeping the union intact. For the south, the war was about slavery. Iím saying the Union didnít give a shit about slavery (or about freedom), at least not to extent where they attacked the south to free the slaves.

    I also donít think it was Northern greed that led to the war - I think the North simply wanted to keep the Union intact.
  11. Replies
    2,851
    Views
    13,814

    Sticky: ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    Iíve thought about it. Itís time for you to learn big words, and thus the names stay as they are. :P
  12. Replies
    2,851
    Views
    13,814

    Sticky: ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    I will see what I can do about it. If I change names without informing players who arenít here, they may be confused as to why they are suddenly unable to access their accounts.
  13. Replies
    2,851
    Views
    13,814

    Sticky: ►►Re: S-FM Magellan (15p)◄◄

    In case anyone is curious, here is the reasoning behind each name:
    Rotholfo Goncales - alteration of Rodolfo GonÁalez
    Billigan Holbird - Bill + Gilligan and Hilbert
    Lois Francklyn - Lewis/Louis/Lois Franklin
    Gollert Twissell - futuristic sounding name
    Vladislow Kennt - Vladislav + a German (Jewish) sounding name
    Jiles Carballo - Giles Carbalha (Portuguese name)
    Joha Schtilzt - Johann Schlitzt
    Lembird Oshay - Lambert OíShea
    Fred Attlebish - Fred + a futuristic English name
    Arnarld Quinne - Arnold Queen
    Marlwyn Janson - Marylin Johnson
    Jan Korvin - John Corvin
    Marck Wilbird - Mark Wilbert
    Bart Pilfter - Bart + a futuristic sounding name
    Edoua Maije - phonetic spelling of Edouard Maillť
  14. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I think the war was more about secession than slavery. The only reason the north attacked the south was because they tried to secede. The South seceded because they were afraid slavery would be abolished in the South as well - I think the Union didnít really give much of a shit about freedom and whatnot.
  15. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by oops_ur_dead View Post
    Oh taxation is easy!

    Low corporate taxes, scrap welfare and replace with negative tax brackets, scrap most sales tax, tax property and capital gains rather than wealth.
    Negative tax brackets? I have never heard of such a thing, is that essentially a way of giving people money if they donít make enough?
    I donít know if I agree with that though. I think wellfare is a better idea. People who donít have a lot of money probably shouldnít be trusted with it.
  16. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    The strongest argument in favour of the Union not really giving much of a shit about slavery are the Jim Crow laws. It took nearly a century to repeal them. Why?
  17. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Who else thinks fusion power is fucking dope?
  18. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Anyway, one change Iíd like to see is a more interactive taxation system where you get to choose where a certain percentage of the taxes you pay go. I would put as much as I could into space exploration because itís, in my view, the single most important problem we are facing right now, and it heavily contributes to scientific advancement. Hell, it would be nice if we really went to Mars before 2030 like NASA is currently planning on doing.
  19. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Intent and action are interlinked. When action deviates strongly from intent, perhaps the person was lying about their real intent.
  20. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Lol!

    I kinda think its funny how caught up people get on categories. Add 20 qualifications that are exactly the same but with two different names and you will be put in the box that the other side wants you to be in so they can tell you that you are wrong. Even if they hold the same 20 qualifications themselves.

    The oppositional defiant nature of people never ceases to amuse me. I feel like bigotry is one of the defining characteristics of our generation. All too often any effort to open someones mind is seen as an attack on their belief structure and invalidated into an argument instead of a discussion.
    The issue is that belief systems are more or less necessary. And that most people look to politics for a concrete belief system that they can use in their lives. Itís not STRICTLY a categorisation issue because e.g. someone who is staunchly against, say, capitalism, will probably try to refuse capitalism in all of its forms.
  21. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Why? Isnít it a very strong argument in favour of the confederates being essentially fundamentally founded on racist principles?
  22. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Even here, none of you guys brought up the Jim Crow laws as an argument. Why? Why is this crucial piece of evidence often overlooked by both sides? I can understand why pro-Confederacy people would ignore it, but certainly not those against it lol
  23. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I read an extremely interesting and long comment on a YT video about the South during the civil war. It was a very convincing comment; however, I think itís extremely strange that the Jim Crow laws are literally never mentioned in any debate over what the south fought for. While thereís a lot to be said about what the South fought for and a lot of things can essentially be said in favour of them not fighting (just) for slavery, the fact remains that the Jim Crow laws are extremely difficult to explain away. You canít ignore them.
  24. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    Ugh more civil war talk
    I wonder if this is a reflection of the shit thatís going on in the US atm
  25. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I actually do have another question that I think rarely gets brought up. The Northern states had abolished slavery quite a while before the South did. Why? And speaking of which, how many blacks were there in the north to begin with?
  26. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    One other thing that in my view constitutes a very glaring issue is the fact that the north allowed Jim Crow laws to be passed in the south. If all men are created equal, why allow people to disenfranchise a substantial minority of them based on skin colour?
  27. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Also what does everyone think about the plan to resettle blacks in Africa
    I think it was dumb and actually quite racist. Imagine deporting thousands of your citizens to a land they had literally never seen before.
    Liberia wouldíve been nice if it had worked out because then the US would today have a major American ally in Africa, but this wasnít the case.
  28. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    With regards to the civil war: what I find most distressing on the part of the Union are the tactics union generals employed in subduing the south. You donít generally wage total war against regions in your country. I believe they shouldíve done something else.
  29. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Sorry. Iím going through some rough shit right now and I lose the ability to discriminate between attacks and arguments. I (mis)interpreted your posts as an attack on religion itself, something which greatly concerns me not because I am religious but because it is so ubiquitous nowadays and I just canít help and push against it. I am more on the religious side of things than not so thatís where I stand; I think religion is very interesting and nice so Iím quite sympathetic to it (partly because it is, in my view, a bit too vilified, especially amongst younger people)

    I think I have contributed a lot to polarization through threads like these and consequently as a gesture of goodwill this will be my last post about religion on this thread.

    About divorce: divorce isnít wrong. Itís fine. I do think itís something that should generally be carefully considered, but itís not wrong (or immoral).

    I maintain that the symbol of the US doesnít concern me at all. Some actions from the religious conservatives in the US do, however; like gay marriage/abortion for instance. But this motto has been around for so long that I donít think itís really got any significant religious meaning behind it. I think it can be and is being pushed in some cases by more religious members of the government and I can see why; Mississippi is the most religious state in America.

    Anyways good luck yíall and if youíd like to continue the discussion we can talk in PMs or on Discord.
  30. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    If so thatís my mistake. Itís not immoral; I think religious people are wrong to ascribe that trait to it. But I think they have some legitimate grievances to be heard.
  31. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by deathworlds View Post
    I provided my own reasoning arsehole
    Lol its just that, I was expecting people to agree with me about it and Iím confused that that is controversial.
  32. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Is it worse for two people to separate who are unhappy so they can find happiness; or for them to suffer and have a less fulfilling life on principal?

    And what if its worse for the child who has to live in a hostile environment vs them separating and having 2 peaceful environments?

    How about if you get roofied in Vegas and wake up married? Should you spend the rest of your life with that person on principal although you were drugged and basically never consented to be married?

    Regardless why do you believe divorce is wrong at all? Like.. Where does your perceived 'wrongness' come from if two people both want their relationship to end? What makes it wrong at all to you?
    I just think itís very harmful, and I can totally see why people say divorce is wrong. There are definitely some situations where divorce is preferable, but Iím saying, maybe people screwed up somewhere. I think that if itís possible to salvage your relationship and you are afraid of getting a divorce, you should definitely fight for it and see if itís possible and desirable for the relationship to continue.

    Its a complicated issue. Itís not wholly wrong, but it has an ugly tinge to it. You shouldnít spend the rest of your life with someone you donít like. My point is, you should try to minimize the number of divorces you have to go through. Theyíre not pretty. And they can be pretty damaging. They shouldnít be viewed as a get-out-if-jail-free card if things go south.

    With regards to your last post: of course if both parties agree that a marriage should end, then divorce ainít bad, although, again, thereís the situation where maybe divorce wasnít the right thing to do. Many people experience regret after getting a divorce (over 22%). Itís really not an easy decision to make. More power to you if you decide to leave a relationship thatís not good for you. But thereís a fine line between doing that and just going through many failed marriages.
  33. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Do yíall react just to it being banned/or not by religion cuz if thatís the reason then I get it but I canít really argue with that stance.
  34. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Its weird that youíd be for polygamous marriages, even from a utilitarian perspective itís PLAIN wrong, it leads to social unrest because some men donít get any women.
  35. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    I mean. Most people who marry women are men. So itís nit really misogynistic
  36. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by deathworlds View Post
    What's wrong with polygamy?
    Itís pretty misogynistic in my view.
  37. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Speaking of pedophilia, you guys donít know this but we had a pedophilia party here in the Netherlands.
  38. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Yeah and Mormonism is also for polygamy. I never understood why that religion exists. I really donít like it either, and Iím glad Iím not the only one.
  39. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by Helz View Post
    Alcoholics Anonymous has practicing atheists who use the word "God" as their 'higher power' that keeps them sober. It can be simple things like their Kids or their Life/Sanity. From what you are saying it sounds like you are just getting hung up on semantics because you want to push the Atheist faith. How is that any different than pushing a religion? In that regard spirituality goes out the window and its just about 'us vs them' on both sides.
    My point was that I never understood that drive to say "I do not believe in any God and I want to push this belief on those who do." I get that religions are all too often really disgusting things but they provide some basic functions I believe every human should practice. The simple process of challenging your belief structure and reconciling your behavior to your belief structure is just a healthy human practice. If someone does it and ties it into what you see as an imaginary sky man why do you feel the drive to push against that?
    One of the angles I push is that religion is a healthy and beautiful thing but the power structures that manipulate it are really evil. For example I believe the Vatican is easily the most evil organizations that has ever existed in documented history but I think Catholicism brings many people morality, peace, and comfort.
    I would rather you just ask me about my beliefs than take one word I say and assume my belief structure and therefor agenda in the future.
    What do you think the nations motto should be then?
    Couldnt have said it better myself, although do you think the Vatican is still evil nowadays?
  40. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    The other person who was abusive should undoubtedly be punished. Itís just that, marriage is incredibly complicated. People who have been through a divorce need to examine the circumstances that led to it and figure out their own beliefs with respect to the other person, love, the importance of marriage, in personal tterms. Maybe they shouldnít have been married at all. Maybe they just drifted apart because the two parties were unable to settle their differences. Maybe the other person took advantage of their love and goodwill for monetary/emotional benefits or simply out of pure evil. But itís an extremely important and traumatic scenario and people really need to start asking themselves some very important questions prior to, during and after a divorce. You should definitely divorce someone who is being abusive, but you should ask yourself, why did you even marry them in first place? What compelled you to marry someone who was flawed in that particular manner? Did you simply not see it coming? If so you should probably be a lot more careful around people, because bad people do exist and you should be very wary of allowing someone into such a long term relationship with you if theyíre not a good person.
  41. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Of course divorce isnít immoral. But itís also almost always wrong. And you really canít argue otherwise.
  42. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Divorce is generally wrong, and thereís no escaping that. I didnít say victims should be blamed for their own misfortune, I said people should think HARD before going for a divorce, and consider why divorce became necessary. Sure you can place blame on the other person all you want for their evil all you want, but the fact of the matter is, you married them. Why? Simply regarding yourself as a victim wonít help you. You need to figure out what (if any) beliefs, principles, flaws you may have precipitated either the breakup or you marrying someone abusive/who isnít the right fit for you. People should grow a backbone and figure out where they went wrong. Sure the other person is evil but that doesnít change the fact that they managed to deceive you. Figure out why that is, try to salvage your life and make sure that it doesnít affect you AS MUCH as you can, and fix whatever it was that led to the initial situation.
  43. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by rumox View Post
    Kind of dodging the discussion? What discussion? That people can be moral or immoral with marriage and divorce? No shit, there is no discussion to be had there. People can do fucked up shit we all get that. Ganelon said divorce is immoral. Not only is that an explosive hill to stand on, it's factually wrong even considering the institutes stance on it that he was advocating for. I'm not here to argue how people can be moral or immoral with marriage, I was here to point out saying divorce is immoral is retarded.

    Yzb25, is divorce immoral?
    I said divorce is wrong, not immoral. Huge difference.
  44. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Okay the comparison either murder is a bit dramatic. Letís say instead that lying is wrong but itís justified sometimes. Doesnít make any less wrong though.
  45. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    In keeping with what Iím saying, I think thereís a lot of things that are wrong but that are sometimes justified. For example, if someone holds a gun to your childrenís head, killing them is wrong but youíre justified in doing that. I donít think something being wrong means you (necessarily) shouldnít do it. It means yiu should consider your actions very carefully before you do something thatís wrong.
  46. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Marriage can be the right thing to do. It depends on a lot of things. Not everyone should be a parent, and people who donít want to raise children SHOULDNíT marry someone. Or they can marry, they just shouldnít have kids.

    Marrying someone because you were forced to do so (rape) is wrong. Thereís nothing good about it.

    But the thing is, marriage forces people to become more responsible (generally speaking). It is definitely the right thing to do for mature adults who want children.
  47. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Sorry I feel I should present the entire situation as it is.

    Divorce, generally speaking, is wrong. Itís indicative of something going horribly wrong at some point in time. Maybe you married the wrong person. Maybe you just couldnít settle your differences properly. Maybe... thereís a lot of maybes. Itís the correct pathway when youíre in an abusive relationship, or when you literally cannot continue to coexist peacefully.

    Its justified (but wrong) if the person you married doesnít cut it (even if theyíre not abusive). You have a duty to yourself to live the life you want to live. That doesnít make divorce good - you still need to consider the consequences it will have on the other person and your children. But it can be justified in that scenario. Thereís a very fine line between Ďmy current partner isnít very exciting and I donít want to spend the rest of my life with themí and Ďmarriage is just about the thrill and divorce is juceí. Thereís some situations where uts... not really right but not wholly the wrong thing to do, either.
  48. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Personally I donít think theyíre either moral or immoral, theyíre good or wrong. I think marriage compels people to adopt more responsibility which is a good thing (generally speaking), although as with most things there are exceptions, I donít think people are immoral by not getting married though. My point is that religious people do have point when they argue that divorce is wrong. I canít see it as right (again, generally speaking). This isnít to say that we should shame people who get divorced though, just that people should have a very long think before they do it and figure out how it came to that and what they might do in the future to avoid something similar occurring.
  49. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    You can't just put all "marriage" into a good bucket, and all of "divorce" into a bad bucket. What about religious individuals that abuse their position of authority and power to coerce underage girls to marry them? Is that type of marriage "moral", and the girl later wanting to escape "immoral"?

    Marriage isn't even for everyone. It shouldn't be for everyone. Some people want to marry. Others don't. The ones that choose to marry aren't in any way more moral than those that choose to never marry. Como se te occure.
    No, that isnít okay, and divorce is then justified. Thatís orobably one of the few cases where it isnít wrong in some manner.
  50. Replies
    695
    Views
    6,977

    ►►Re: Right-wing liberalism vs Conservvatism◄◄

    Quote Originally Posted by BananaCucho View Post
    At least you can maybe see now why someone like me might take issue with their country's motto being "In god we trust"? It's not just this harmless thing.
    Yeah I think itís pretty deplorable that thing is happening. Now that you mention it, religious nutters in Romania (where Iím from) also used religion to justify banning gay marriage. So you do have a point there. For the record I actually completely detest organized religion in Romania (it sucks; thatís not even the sole reason why it sucks). Many people say they believe to fit in and then they act completely contrary to their beliefs. Itís disgusting.
Results 1 to 50 of 500
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4