Recent posts by NickWalker12 on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / How do you control your anger?

As strange as it sounds, I fall back on philosophical hard determinism. I reason that, whatever shit someone puts me though, they’ve been caused to do that by their circumstance. They have had a series of events that lead to them being assholes. It converts anger to frustration, which is better, but it does mean that I am incredibly frustrated a lot of the time. Still, at least it’s not violent.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ask an Atheist (AAA)

Originally posted by Kasic:

^. It’s incredibly easy for people to not see the difference between questioning and deriding, especially over the internet where a person’s tone of voice is implied instead of explicit…

Very true.

Originally posted by Aleazor:

I’m so glad someone has finally taken up the mantle and decided to speak for all Atheists.

OP specifically titled the thread ‘Ask an Atheist’. Unless the definition of ‘an’ has changed recently, OP is clearly not speaking for all atheists. I think anyone here would make that assumption, either.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ask an Atheist (AAA)

Originally posted by Kellathor:
Originally posted by NeilSenna:

Why are so many atheists so extremely vocal about their leanings on the internet?

Most are out for attention. Most express their opinion too much to others, and also most of them get angry if you question them about their religion. Hell, I find myself getting pissed off sometimes as well.

I think it’s easy for everyone, religious or not, to assume that raising a question about a belief can be seen as offensive, despite how well-meaning the skeptic may be. Maybe they think that you don’t think they’ve considered an argument and are therefore dumb, or maybe they think that you are trying to preach to them. This problem exists in all spheres of debate. In my opinion, the best we can do is remove these assumptions, which would allow for more open and enlightening discussions. Questioning all positions should be promoted.

Originally posted by KingZeldar3:
Originally posted by NeilSenna:

Why are so many atheists so extremely vocal about their leanings on the internet?

I believe it’s probably mostly an act of arrogance. I’ve witnessed this behavior and I would not be surprised if you have. But some atheists are not the only ones who act this way.

As your rightly say, it exists across the board. Again, I’d go as far as to say that it happens with all stances. The joke: “How do you know if a vegans in the room? They’ll tell you.” applies here. Ethics are an important part of peoples lives, and it’s usually related to religion, so it’s often brought up.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Atheist forced to go to church

Originally posted by Aleazor:

It sounds like Mommy is still washing your underpants, Nick. Let’s agree to disagree.
“My logic” as it were, is quite secure in matters such as these.

Only on Wednesdays… No but seriously, it only ‘sounds like’ that because you have developed an opinion of me as being spoiled, despite knowing nothing about my circumstance. If anyone needed an example of prejudice, you’ve just provided it. On a related note, I would argue that a sense of maturity is knowing when to keep personal feelings out of a debate. Does that mean that your parents should still get to dictate parts of your life?

More on point, the fact that you think your logic is secure – i.e. that you are correct – is completely unsupported. My response would simply echo that of Karma’s (and I’ll take this opportunity to thank Karma for a hilarious read, and that the reality is much less interesting. I use the washing machine in the house I’m renting), although I can respond to this:

Originally posted by Aleazor:
In all honesty karma, I began to write a lengthy explanation, but soon came to the pessimistic conclusion that it wouldn’t accomplish anything. Spoiled brats have a sense of entitlement to their parent’s stuff. Houses, food, electricity, heat, water… This isn’t magical stuff that’s doled out to everyone at birth.
My position is clear, you want to live by your own rules in your parent’s house, pay rent.

All I get from this thread is, “They feed me. They clothe me. They give me a place to live. They put up with all my crap, but I don’t care what’s important to them, and I don’t want to do anything for them that I don’t want to do.”

Again, I’m sure if his parents approached him from this angle: I.e. “It’s important to us that you come, and we’d be extremely grateful that you did.”, then I would have no problem. However, it is the fact that they were not open to a discussion about it that leads me to believe that they simply show a lack of respect.

Real life consists of doing things you don’t want to do to get what you need…

Isn’t one of the many ventures of life to remove as much of those as possible? Family really shouldn’t be causing this kind of issue, or maybe I just have reasonable relations relative to others.

whether it’s working 40+ hours a week in a grueling crap job you hate, or going to church once a week with mom and dad. Gimme a break.

Tell me if I’m wrong, but it sounds like you are using the struggles in your life to argue that he should be miserable in his. You’re implying the status quo is what everyone else should aim for.

Grow up and pay rent, or move out. It’s not rocket science, it’s a simple fact of life.

Again, this “simple fact of life” does not exist for everyone, nor should it. You’re also forgetting that he’s probably still in formal education of some sort.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

But, as I’ve demonstrated above (and Nick has quite interestingly led us to), the real issue is how a parent/child relationship develops & changes over the years. Who owes whom what…both materially & emotionally? Kasic has made some inroads to this idea on an atheist thread (we have too many of them going on at the same time).
I think it might be a subject best suited for a thread of its own: The rigors of childhood & the hell of near-adulthood….all complicated by those awful creatures w/ know as parents.

If I’ve got time I might start the topic. Would be interesting to see what everyone thinks about that dynamic.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Ask an Atheist (AAA)

Originally posted by NeilSenna:

Why are so many atheists so extremely vocal about their leanings on the internet?

Same reason other minorities are. Not to mention the fact that theology and philosophy are great debate subjects, and the internet is good for that. I’d also make the slightly controversial claim that atheists tend to be more internet based people. Technology and the sciences: “Nerds” etc. Actually, one word I’d use for the nerd label is atheistic, if not agnostic, at least in pop culture.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The 'Dumbing' of the games...

Originally posted by niceman555:


-make it simple, not complicated

No. The game can be as complex as it likes, as long as it’s accessible from all skill levels. This is the mark of a great game.

-make it so there is multiple things to do in a game (Battlefield needs help on that)

Replayability, yes.
-make it multiplayer or Wi-Fi
Incorrect. Also, Wifi is not a mechanic.
-a ranking system with purpose (guns n’ stuff or new shiz)
Only applies to competitive games.
-make customization
It’s one form of incentive, but again, it’s not a required component of a great game.
This is the truth

Highly debatable.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Originally posted by Kasic:

Actually, using your analogy, it’s like saying that the police aren’t responsible for stopping crime and we all need to do our part, when the police know who the criminals are, what they’re doing, and could stop them at any time, but are refusing to do so because they want the civilians to take care of it themselves.

Good point. Yeah, you’re analogy fits much better.

That concept has nothing to do with the idea of theism.

Another good point. I will admit, I generalized. Didn’t think it was necessary to specifically mention the religions who talk about a powerful God, but thanks for clarifying it. I must be tired, as I’m getting lazy!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Nudism: Inspiring, or pointless

Not sure how factual this is, but I’ve always been under the assumption that less sexual repression is a good thing. Being nude all the time would help shift peoples opinions of nudity from objectification to normalization. Thus, I’d assume violence of a sexual nature would go down. I’m feeling lazy, but if anyone has any stats, would love to read.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Im a IT student...somehow considering Suicide....

Mate, the stigmatization of mental illness makes people fail to correctly realize and treat it. If you fell down the stairs and broke your leg, you’d go to a doctor. Suicidal thoughts are usually the result of depression, which is often caused by a natural chemical imbalance. See a doctor, and do it soon.

EDIT to reply:

Originally posted by dd790:

Why do people bother with these pleas for attention. “I need attention or I’ll kill myself” is just the most pathetic thing but seems to be getting more and more common, probably because you can just make a thread and get the attention you want

Your reply shows that you want people to acknowledge your view. You are craving attention as well. It’s human nature, get over it. Something that one of us says might stop a man from permanently ending his own life. It’s a possibility. It’s worth taking a few minutes of my time for.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Debating Gay Rights

Originally posted by DiogoC19:

C – I am against such proposition because a homossexual is covered by human rights and civil rights just as anybody else. And if someone is beaten, or discriminated because of something, such as their weird food tastes, or a body feature, it would consist in infringement of their rights.

Two people may get into a bar fight because one guy looked at the other in some way (or some other rubbish), but this kind of violence is not specific to a demographic. It’s circumstantial, in the moment, often drug-induced violence of passion.

Hate crime is crime directed at certain demographics fuelled by a specific ideology of hate and/or phobia: Eg: sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia generally. The reason I personally feel it’s important to differentiate between these two types of violence is that one is provoked in the heat of the moment, and often regretted, while the other is an ideologically held belief that they may perceive as giving them the right to violence. In these cases, violence is often pre-planned and malicious intent is always there.


Also: The ammount of violence (in Brasil, where I live), against homossexual, is way less than against heterossexuals (proportionally, not only in total), and they are not “hate” related. That means that if the occurrence of violence against a certain group, would ultimately mean hate, than the only group suffering from a significant ammount of hate are the heterossexuals, which, is obviously not true.


Are the crimes against hetrosexuals due to their heterosexuality? What I mean is, are fights started over their straightness? I’ve never heard of an example of that, and yet there are countless examples of people attacking homosexuals exclusively because they are homosexuals.
The purpose of marriage law is to regulate the interaction between the union of a male and a female, and their sex* lives. The rights and duties of each member of the family institution.

Debatable. Also, I have never heard of a homosexual using that definition. As far as I know, all gays want is equal rights in relation to the law. If you want someone else (or some legal document) to regulate your sex life, that’s your choice.

a) a woman having vocation to motherhood, cooking and taking care of the house and kids
b) a man having the duty to provide and protect the family.
c) both man and woman having to provide sex to each other, in the traditional way.

I’d argue that this is straight up sexist. The rest of those conditions are just insane. It just makes you sound like you’re terrified of sexuality and pleasure. Marriage, in my opinion, should be an expression of love and devotion, not a rule book. If you need to state rules explicitly to protect yourself, then you have not found the right partner.

D – Man and woman complement each other. Man and woman are equal in humanity and dignity, but different in nature. The human race exists as male and female, and the differences between sex gives to humanity a profound vision, which wouldn’t exist otherwise.

This is ideological rubbish. I could say the same things about your views with just as much (or rather, as little) credibility.

1 – A child is a human being that is not fully developed and it has a fragile mind and need to be shielded from certain realities, so it can grow in a simple environment free from corruption of good customs and traditions.


Children are often far more open-minded than adults, especially regarding love. In my opinion, you need to teach homophobia, whereas understanding love between any combinations of people is easy and natural.

2 – Any person that holds publicly, a significant and uncommon immoral behavior, that may influence their kids, should not have the right to adopt a child.


The only ethical groups who argue that homosexuality is immoral do so for religious reasons, which is built on faith, which is basically gossip glorified. To demonstrably call homosexuality immoral would require you to run quantifiable demonstrations.

Uncommon opinions are not bad. What you are implying is that censorship should be applied to minorities, which is a dangerous and clearly damaging idea.

w – that includes very troubled parents who does drugs or alcohol, to such extent, that may affect their child.

Are you equating homosexuality to drug addicts and violent parents? I sure hope not. Just as a circumstantial point, the only personal example I know of, of an abusive, violent parent, is from a highly religious family.

3 – Every child, should have access to the role model of male, and female, so as to give them reference as to what to copy, and what to expect from the opposite sex.



4 – A homosexual man, is the opposed of a role model of male. As a homosexual woman is the opposed of a role model of female.


You are making the assumption that the only figures in a childs life will be their parents, which is simply untrue. In fact, if anything, we need a greater understanding of the uncommon behaviours and labels, not the common ones.

5 – A homosexual social interaction with their partners, is the opposite of how an exemplar male, or female, should have interactions with their counterpart of opposite sex when they grow up.


Again you are saying that homosexuality is immoral. You’re a homophobe. Additionally, you are making an equaly dangerous point that you believe that males should treat all females as they would their wife, which is also ridiculous. Children will have far more platonic friendships than they will lovers. It is that difference that we need to teach them, not who they fall in love with.

6 – By exposing a child to homosexuality, as an acceptable behavior, you are doing the opposite of teaching them good customs and traditions. You are influencing them as to become the opposite as to what it would be ideal.


There is no inherent value in tradition, and customs fall under that umbrella. What is ideal to you is inhumane to me, brother.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Atheist forced to go to church

I think anyone, family or otherwise, who insists you do with your free time what they want, even after politely declining, is showing a clear lack of respect. Or, more specifically, an unjustified sense of entitlement over your life. I can appreciate if they asked you to continue to attend Church with them, citing that it is important to them, but their instance is what gets me.

Originally posted by Nuob:

Why don’t you politely go to church and don’t put up any fight and respect your parents until you move out of the house?

There are other ways in which this individual can show respect and gratitude. Also, the fact that his parents are forcing him to attend shows that his parents clearly don’t have respect for his atheism. You’re language seems somewhat aggressive, and it sounds dangerously similar to what an atheist friend of mines abusive parent shouts at her on a regular basis. I’m not implying that you are abusive, just that, you seem to be implying that KingZeldar3 is not showing any respect to his parents, which we simply cannot conclude from what he’s said. Also, calling it ‘whining’ is further indicating that you don’t value KingZeldar3’s opinions.

Most of you seem to suggest that you need to consider a trade off. In my opinion, what his Dad is demanding of him is unreasonable, and living off your parents at eighteen is to be expected, at least in the UK. I’m sure when he grows up and has kid’s, he’ll do the same, and I thought that was an accepted structure. As dd790 says, you don’t owe them for raising you. If they didn’t, that would be child abuse. It was their decision to have kids. This isn’t to say that a child has no responsibility, or obligation to work, nor am I saying that one cannot be thankful to their parents. There is no doubt in my mind that I should take every opportunity to thank my parents, but any kind of obligation is unfounded.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

If they insist on you going to church, refuse to change out of your pentagram shirt :>>

Now, that being said: I think all (or the vast majority of) atheists go through something like this. Which means their dislike of religion is partly derived from mommy and daddy issues, and not some faux-intellectual conscientious objection, the way it’s often spun.

I would have to disagree. It may be the case in some highly religious parts of America, but certainly not in the European states.

Originally posted by Aleazor:
How much do you pay in rent and utilities?..
This isn’t even a religious issue.

My brother is in his third year at University and when he’s home our parents still financially support him. By your logic, that makes him a child? Earning money is not the only condition for adulthood, and this is most definitely a religious issue. Not to mention the fact that if a kid says he doesn’t want to go to church, he should not be forced to go to church.

Despite all of the above, I would of course agree with KKK and TheBSG in that, you can always do your best to turn all negative situations into positive ones. That is more of a personal ideology than a response to the problem, however. Forcing your children down in any direction that they oppose is rarely a good thing, unless it can be damaging to them.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / The Santa Problem

There is that algorithm that determines the best route to take to reach every house while travelling the smallest distance. You’d need a super computer and/or a really long time to get the answer though… assuming you could even get the data together.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Originally posted by YoDrTube:

Because he wants us to fix our problms and our world by ourself!

Are you seriously using that as a justification for all evil in this world? You’re saying that a rape victim should have suffered the rape only because it’s up to us to solve that problem? There are people who, by no fault of their own, are subjected to a level of suffering that most of us cannot begin to empathize with, and your response is that God’s plan is that it’s our job to fix that?

That’s like saying, because there are police in our communities, we shouldn’t attempt to stop crime ourselves.

This is why I find the idea of theism to be truly offensive. EDIT: Frankly, it is a relief that all the suffering that happens isn’t any one persons fault.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Are we distracted?

Distracted from what?… Heh.

What the other guy said: It’s all about money.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Religion: The Law Of One

Originally posted by Helltank:

That is not a two hour read.

No need to make that point. You ARE aware that some people read faster than others, right?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Originally posted by MyTie:

This question ties back into free will. If God made everything better, someone would wonder why he didn’t make it even better, etc etc etc, until it was a perfect utopia. That would only be possible if He took away free will. If He does that, then he takes away the option to disobey Him. That would also rid the world of love, since love has to be voluntary. This whole topic comes because people don’t think through the implications of their criticisms of God.

You’re ignoring the fact that God is supposed to be all powerful. If I was a God, I’d make it so that free will could exist without the need for suffering. From the evidence of this world, that simply didn’t happen. Thus, suffering must be justified, or God does not exist.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by NickWalker12:

Gotta love ‘The Problem Of Evil’ argument.

I’m a Hard Determinist, and as a result I have never heard an answer to this problem from theists, nor am I able to come up with one myself. As a result, for this reason (and others), I am an atheist.

I think you mean, you’ve never heard an answer that fits with your silly philosophy, which is a rather different thing.

If you remove the word silly, you’re reiterating exactly what I said. I think it’s clear that, when I said “I have never heard of an answer to this problem”, I am implying that I haven’t heard an answer that addresses the issues raised by Hard Determinism.

Regardless, please elaborate, why is Hard Determinism silly?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / IF god was real why dosnt he fix the world we live in now

Gotta love ‘The Problem Of Evil’ argument.

I’m a Hard Determinist, and as a result I have never heard an answer to this problem from theists, nor am I able to come up with one myself. As a result, for this reason (and others), I am an atheist.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Could this viewpoint be considered offensive?

^ I agree with Harvey.

Identifying the cause of a certain sexuality, and discussing the idea that it could be removed, is not at all offensive. I’d like to know why I’m transgender, for example.

Regarding the idea of using eugenics to remove the “gay gene” is, to me, offensive. Why? As Harvey said, I don’t see an ethical reason to eradicate it, and so doing so would beg the question of why.

I would, however, support the research to prevent gender dysphoria (transgenderism), as the suffering a transgender experiences is largely to do with ones sense of self, and our inability to physically match our gender. Alternatively, research to help improve the transition process would be a welcome (and preferred) alternative.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Human stupidity

Originally posted by player_03:
Originally posted by NickWalker12:

Any statistics to show the dropping IQ of the globe? I’m under the impression that the opposite is happening.

Correct.

Also, obligatory xkcd.

Cheers for the link. Didn’t realize there was an official effect named after it. Interesting read.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Has there been a decline in culture in the past decades?

The first concern is whether or not technology helps or inhibits our learning. It does both. Certain skills become outdated, which, as Vika said, is a natural techno-cultural phenomenon. I don’t necessarily see this as a bad thing. Most skills are well documented and the history of certain crafts is still of interest to certain people so it’s not like they will be lost forever.

On the other side of the coin, I can learn anything I want to simply by owning a computer and an internet subscription. This is unfathomably useful, for every discipline. The speed in which we can access education, and media, and entertainment is fantastic.

Your calculator analogy ignores an extremely important point: While my mental arithmetic is awful due to using calculators all my life, I have instead learned how to program a computer to do a million of those same calculations in a second. In the same way I cannot run as fast as my ancestors, but I can drive faster. Why would I need to learn how to do mundane things that a machine can do when a machine can do it so much better?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the second issue is regarding the idea that the younger generations are going to get impatient, given how quickly they can do things that would have taken us hours. Again, I definitely don’t see this as happening. For example, my impatience for the loading time of a web-browser directly correlates with the speeds of the internet experienced by my peers, and by the claims made by the people who we pay for these goods and services.

The speed of my internet does not affect the time in which I expect to wait in a queue. Why? Because those two things are distinctly separate. I’d argue that children these days have the same amount of patience, they/we just have higher expectations of certain technologies and services. By that, I mean it’s entirely relative. Impatience is expecting faster than the norm.

And on the thread topic of the disappearance of literature, I’d argue in agreement with vika. Nowadays, a lot of literacy fans (myself included) enjoy it with a combination of other forms of media. Interactive text RPG’s, for example, are quite popular.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

I absolutely agree Ungeziefer.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Chaz Bono and the subject of 'transgender'.

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Imagine if your mind was thrown into a body of the opposite sex and you were told to live like that.

Honestly I think I would have little trouble with that.

I can appreciate that. After nineteen years, I’ve learned to put up with my current physical body. I hate to appeal to emotion, but it is easily the hardest thing I’ve ever done.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Nick, I don’t want ya to see my post here as being contradictory to yours. Rather, I hope ya see it as being a “from-left-field” approach to explaining some of the reason ya have the opinions ya express in your post.

Of course, it’s how I’ve interpreted the following anyway, but thanks for the clarification.

I can well understand your frustration about how we are yet debating the issue of acceptance of ASO (Alternative Sexual Orientation). Right there, one can generate an opinion that by even differentiating a minority from the majority is a (somewhat?) discriminatory denotation. But, it might help to view the word “discriminate” in a light other than a pejorative . Discriminate:1.Recognize a distinction; differentiate. 2.Perceive or constitute the difference in or between. Of course, just as “The proof of the pudding is in the eating of it”, so is the REASON such distinction is being made.

In the future, such distinction will be observed for very benign reasons. A co-worker won’t be trying to set up an encounter (date) of ya by overly-assuming that ya are straight….as things currently are for most ppl. It has taken me a couple of years to use the term: significant other rather than wife, husband, girlfriend, boyfriend. And, I feel that my rather typical iconoclasm is hopefully being a plus in the transformation our society needs to generate.


You make an extremely good point. In the same way I’d ask you about how you take your tea (probably the most British analogy I could have made), I see no offense in discriminating, as you say, benignly, as there is no offense there.
I also do this w/ gender-distinction….mailperson rather than mailman, etc. I believe great things are accomplish via great steps and by little ones, too.


It may be laziness, but I rather naively would hope that one would not consider “milkman” to imply that woman cannot deliver milk. However, after reading Blink (Malcolm Gladwell), which exposes that fact that even the best moral characters are subconsciously slightly racist in certain situations due to a lifetime of stigma, I would have to agree with you that it may not be as harmless as I would hope. Props to you for making that distinction.

…in order to solve a problem…one needs to first acknowledge the existence of the situation as BEING a problem. Then assess why it is a problem…right down to all of the nasty details so that solutions/corrections can be discussed; then implemented; then tweaked as necessary.


Couldn’t be more true. It was another topic that I stated my disliking of the speed in which society makes these changes, especially when government is concerned. You touch on that point below, which I absolutely agree with. Which isn’t to say that there is no more racism and sexism of course: The games industry in particular is guilty of both. In my experience, racism, sexism and homophobia aren’t far from each other. You need to be a special kind of stupid to find no issue with sexism but be a complete racist at the same time.
I’m sure ya’re inferring: SERIOUS, LEGITIMATE, UNBIASED, etc. here.

Of course. Any that could withstand the critique of an Epidemiologist.
And, well….what are ya gonna do? People have a right to an opinion & to loudly express it….regardless of how ignorantly wrong it is. The squeaky wheel is the one that gets the grease. In the case of the absurd “proofs” about ASO being (on many levels) wrong, the “grease” being applied to such shit is largely a debunking that is simply gobbling them up.

It’s not ideal, sure, and to paraphrase some atheistic intellectual who I daren’t quote because I could have the wrong one, “What logical argument can be made to convince someone to value logic.” All I can do is imagine the fantasy of a society run by the scientific ideology.
Hell, some of them are even self-imploding. Imagine that?
LOL

Absolutely hilarious. You can almost taste the irony.

issendorf touts a similar concept regarding “legality”. However, I’d like for YOU to expound on yer meaning on this. There just has to be SOME form of legaility involved so that the rights of both (all?) partners are legally protected.

Of course. When I speak of legal benefits it is almost exclusively regarding the benefits the couple receive from being married, relative to unmarried couples, which is fairly obvious when we speak about upholding the integrity of the contract. Although, speaking on marriage itself, it may just be my programmer brain, but in my opinion we should separate the monetary and (as much as we can) familial laws. Personally, when two or more people decide to become co-dependant on each other, a legal contract should be made to that effect, regardless of status, to protect the party/parties that loses/loose independence. The same laws could apply to students renting together, for example, to protect all parties.

In all honesty, I’m not sure what I want to do about child custody. Everybody knows it’s not perfect, but my opinion on the reason for that is more to do with the amount of research each case is allowed before these kinds of decisions are made, rather than the law itself. It’s extremely sexist, favouring women, I believe, although I’m not sure if that is dictated by the law, or the generalization that men are worse at parenting. I just think marriage shouldn’t come into it, as unmarried couples are still families.

YUP….this wall-0-separation should be obvious. However, try telling THAT to the many ignorant ppl in my community.

Even suggesting to them that the Satan worshippers should be afforded the same rights as them doesn’t seem to affect their views, which is sad. Real sad.

One might—and quite successfully I add—argue that ya’re now drilling holes in that Wall. Let’s keep govt. out of religion. However, a govt. official can’t be choosy…at all.

Another great point. I’d argue that given the idea of a secular state, becoming legally able to marry two (or more) people together is not a religious right. The idea of a humanist wedding shouldn’t be a strange concept in the 21st Century.
In fact, one might even see such unions as being a positive because of the (likely?) increase of adoptions. Hell, the other options are already in place: artificial (or even “fun”) insemination for Lesbians and surrogacy for Gays.

Exactly! If there is a surplus of anything in this world, its orphans. It’s a shame everyone seems to want to have three or more children.
.
Yup…so intrinsically true.
But, tell jhco this….lord knows many (most?) of us on this forum have tried.
And, interestingly enough, he has totally failed to provide much of any other reason than: because they are “icky”

Such attitudes are usually so ingrained in a person that for it to cease to exist…
the person has to cease to exist, also.


If you find a way to cure bigotry, we’d all love to know.
Fortunately, progress in the LGBT area is snowballing on three fronts: the literal “dying-off” of homophobic crowd, the enlightenment of the more open minded, and the “so-what’s-the-big-deal?” of the younger generations. I might note that such enlightenment is greatly enhanced by the huge COMMON SENSE information that is now being openly discussed (and “cussed”).


Thankfully, this is very true. As a nineteen year old, I am happy that my generation is being recognised as the most open-minded. Of course, it happens with every generation, which is an amazing thing, but I think it’s fantastic to be a part of it. I don’t expect it be very long before historians baffle the minds of future children about how we could even contemplate that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, or race, or sex, or skin colour.
 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Transgenders - Public Bathrooms

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
And Nick,
it is posts like that really fine one that causes me to say: I miss ya posting here.
Please, make efforts to “visit” more often.

Ya really nailed the essence of what the thread is about.
Kudos to ya.

Cheers Karma. You’re the first person I recognized on the forum, glad your still around mate! It’s hard for me to think of anything we disagree about.