![]() |
|
What have *you* done for your country lately? (US centric) |
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
![]() |
Bob, you might be better off getting European people to donate! We would all much prefer to see the Christian Church be less powerful in politics and the government of America to keep to the constituion. |
Goalie Ca
Member #2,579
July 2002
![]() |
Bob, I invite you to move up to Canada ------------- |
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
![]() |
Quote:
Bob, I invite you to move up to Canada Hes a Canadian. -- |
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
![]() |
Perhaps the ACLU is 95% funded by Canadians and other non-american people! |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
![]() |
Defending people's rights is an ungrateful job. People just don't want to be free... The ACLU is the final guardian of your rights. Don't confuse "defending your opponents rights" with "being your opponent". When the ACLU defends the first amendment rights of, say, a nazi, that does not make them nazis - it's EVERYONE's right to free speech they are defending. "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wish we had an organization like it around here... -- |
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
![]() |
Quote: I wish we had an organization like it around here... Seems like Sweden is pretty liberal when what I've read about it. |
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
![]() |
Quote: Seems like Sweden is pretty liberal when what I've read about it.
The days of the '60s pornos are long gone. It's not as police statey as Britain yet, but the Antichrist is sure working on it. -- |
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
![]() |
Why do you only aim your country... That is egocentric. The real question: What have you done for the world lately ? "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
![]() |
Quote: The real question: What have you done for the world lately ?
I donated to Greenpeace Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
![]() |
Quote: The real question: What have you done for the world lately ? I don't spend that much fossil fuels because I use my bike for travelling any distance < 50km if you want to make a difference just change your own habits and lifestyle. Unless you donate insane amounts of money it will cause a much bigger impact. [edit] __________ |
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
![]() |
I agree with HoHo. "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
![]() |
" Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do" Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
![]() |
What's wrong with nuclear power? |
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
![]() |
Where do you see us talking about nuclear power ? "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
![]() |
Quote: What's wrong with nuclear power?
There's nothing wrong with nuclear power, there's a LOT wrong with nuclear fission Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
BAF
Member #2,981
December 2002
![]() |
HoHo said:
[edit]
|
GullRaDriel
Member #3,861
September 2003
![]() |
Perhaps I misread, but Greenpeace has some problem with it. HoHo do not say he has some, he says he disagree with Greenpeace. "Code is like shit - it only smells if it is not yours" |
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
![]() |
You understood correctly I don't know a lot about greenpeace but I think they say that nuclear power is bad because of all the waste it produces. Some time ago I saw some reseach that said that coal powerplants produce way more radioactive waste than nuclear plants. Only difference is that waste is not concentrated but thrown into atmosphere. They also said that you would get more energy from coal if you would produce nuclear fuel from it and use that in nuclear plants than burning the coal in regular powerplants. If I get the time I could try looking up the links but it would be quie hard. They are posted somewhere in a thread with about 2000 posts __________ |
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
![]() |
Quote: Some time ago I saw some reseach that said that coal powerplants produce way more radioactive waste than nuclear plants. Only difference is that waste is not concentrated but thrown into atmosphere. They also said that you would get more energy from coal if you would produce nuclear fuel from it and use that in nuclear plants than burning the coal in regular powerplants.
Do you really believe that By the way: coal isn't verry environment friendly that's true. Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
Carrus85
Member #2,633
August 2002
![]() |
While the ACLU is great for defending the "rights of the downtrodden," the "underprivlidged," and so forth, it is hard to ignore that most of the time, they come across as possibly the most idiotic, self-serving, irrelivant, thorn-in-everyones-side organization. For example, the ACLU's stance on Corporate Personhood is a perfect example of how they are not serving as constitution police. A company is not, never will be, and cannot be treated as a person (even though currently in the US it is, much to the attest of common sense). You can put a person in jail to stop them from doing something (or arrest them); you cannot do the same to an entire company. And since a company cannot be a person, it cannot vote, or lobby congress... oh, wait, that's right, they already do. Their support for affirmative action (the great unequalizer, or as I like to call it, the reverse discrimination doctrine) is also rather disconcerting. Setting particular "quotas" on underrepresented groups undermines their dignity as human beings. Personally, I would find it to be a slap on the face. So, a particular group HAS to have affirmative action to get a job? That is a pretty sad commentary on said group. Not only that, but it unfairly discriminates against those who could otherwise have gotten jobs, only to be denied because their "quota" on other groups has yet to be filled. And last, but not least, their stance on abortion. Call me stupid, but if someone gets pregnant, they ought to have to live with the consequences of their actions, rather than murder another person. The only times abortion should be legal, IMHO, is either in cases of Rape/Incest or life-threatening physical harm to the mother. Do people have reproductive rights? Yes, but it doesn't give them the right to terminate another beings life. Choices have consequences, and people need to realize that it isn't their right to remove the consequences of their actions when they have to destroy another "life" (quoted, because "life" is a very touchy term when talking about abortion) to achieve it.
|
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
![]() |
Quote: Yes, but it doesn't give them the right to terminate another beings life. Say that next time you eat BigMac __________ |
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
![]() |
Big Mac ..::) I'll go for a Whopper Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
Carrus85
Member #2,633
August 2002
![]() |
HoHo: Actually, since we are omnivores, it is kinda required (at least, in a sane sense), that we consume some sort of meat (or absolute craploads of certain vegetables) in order to gain some of the proper nutrition we need. Of course, this doesn't necessarily give us the right to terminate the other "beings" life; it does, however, generate a necessecity to do so (either that, or just "trade" one beings life for a whole ton more of other "beings" (second beings == vegetables... I mean, if we are going to argue we are robbing certain "beings" right to existance, than we would cease to exist; basically all of our fuel is derived directly from other "beings."))
|
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
![]() |
Don't overreact about it. I just saw a bit too absolute claim and responded. Had it been "another person" I wouldn't have made that joke. As for abortion, I'm not totally against it but it should be strictly regulated. I think in Estonia you have to have at least one child and (or?) >30y old to make an abortion. Of course those other reasons listed before should also apply. __________ |
Matthew Leverton
Supreme Loser
January 1999
![]() |
Abortion raises all sorts of questions. I'm against it in the manner that Carrus85 described, but for fun I like to play along with people who are in favor of it. For example, a question that is typically raised by the supporters: "Isn't it better to kill the baby if there is a good chance he will have physical problems?" It's a valid question, and really one of the few things that they can use as reasoning behind it. But if that's their concern, wouldn't it be even better to let the baby be born and figure out if he really does have that disability? Why not kill him six months after birth when you are really sure? Just the thought of that makes most people (but probably not us here A chance of a disability is just that: a chance. I know someone who was told to have an abortion because her child would most likely have Down Syndrome. Ten years later, the child is perfectly fine. Of course it's just one example that proves nothing (and obviously children are born with it after being "diagnosed"), but if the goal is to eliminate the world of handicapped people, why not just make it legal to kill them? Surely that's more fair then blindly killing all unborn children who might be diseased. |
|
|