Controversy

Blog For Free! Archives Home 2007 April 2005 February 2005 January 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2003 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September My Links My essay: The Immorality of Marriage The Onion SelectSmart Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas! Tom Robbins Quotes Funny Name Analysis Bushisms Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell Life, Liberty, Logic Wasting My Time RedTigress's Blog Jimmytherighteous's Blog Octo6er's Blog Nivek's Blog Magicjoejoe's Blog Littlemrmahatma's Blog Kurtmaddox's Blog Winstonsmith's Blog Drforbush's Blog Juniperflux's Blog Iron Blog Religion! tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Bookmark this site!

Controversy 10.31.03 (10:02 pm)   [edit] I haven't posted in a while because I've been extremely busy and also not at all creative. I haven't been all that busy today, but I'm still not feeling any sort of creativity, so I'm just going to post about some controversial issues and where I stand. [b]Abortion:[/b] Pro-Choice. I doubt that I would personally be able to have an abortion, but it is a matter of individual choice and banning abortions only violates the rights of the individual. If you consider an unborn fetus an individual, you could argue that they have rights as well. And that's fine, but consider the fact that many abortions occur because the mother knows that she cannot care for the child or due to some sort of birth defect detected that would cause the child to be miserable. I think that anyone who uses abortion as a form of birth control is abusing the system and I definitely disagree with this. However, it is a matter of choice and the government should have nothing to do with it. [b]Death Penalty:[/b] Against. No one deserves to die, regardless of cruelties they have committed. They should be punished accordingly, but there is so much room for error in the justice system that it is way too questionable to implement such a cruel punishment. If even one person is killed by an erroneous judgment sentencing them to the Death Penalty, I think it is an irreversible and horrendous atrocity. And I'm sure there have been countless innocent people who have died due to the Death Penalty. [b]Affirmative action:[/b] Against. I think the whole idea of affirmative action is somewhat ludicrous. To right a wrong against racial inequalities of the past by giving preferential treatment to minorities now seems to be a bit of an oxymoron or a self-defeating attempt at so-called justice. I believe in absolute equality. Equality of opportunity based on the individual and his/her talents regardless of race, sex, age, etc. Affirmative action is disadvantageous in the efforts of attaining equality because it only harbors inequality. [b]Religion:[/b] Atheist. Well, maybe Agnostic.. I don't believe in God, but I wouldn't absolutely rule out the possiblity- I only believe in something if there is proof. I've talked about religion before though, so I won't go into much detail. If you'd like to know my opinions on religion, feel free to ask me, I love discussing it hehe. [b]Politics:[/b] Liberterian, I suppose (though I hate to say that because I hate to agree with my brother lol). I believe in individual freedom and feel that the government should not interfere with the lives of the people. Freedom should not be limited. [b]Assisted suicide:[/b] Again, the government should have nothing to do with the decision of a terminally ill person. It should be solely up to the individual to decide. Hmm.. I can't think of anything else. Let me know if there are some more controversial topics I can take a stance on lol.   posted by: SamAdams (reply) post date: 11.01.03 (12:43 pm) Love your blog: Abortion: agree that government should stay out--- as no one can judge or should judge a woman in those circumstances ... it's too easy to lecture a woman if one doesn't have to face her consequences ... Death penalty: agree Affirmative action: agree, if and only if -- all forms of affirmative action were eliminated: What about Bush getting into to Yale based-upon Legacy Points (his daddy & grand-dad went to Yale), and not on merit ... Bush was rejected from UofTexas Law School-- only got into Yale because of Daddy... Cronyism Affirmative Action should be outlawed too... Religion: personal decision and government should stay out of endorsing, supporting or otherwise involving itself in religion (as per the US Constitution) ... it's a private choice ... Politics: "Freedom should not be limited"???? Excuuussss, meeee ... but surely you can't be serious ... We're not free to murder & rape people ... We're not free to drive a car through a red light & possibly kill someone in the process ... "total freedom" isn't possible in a civilized society ... Our ability to live in a civilized, advanced & safe-as-possible manner, is based upon having established the Rule of Law ... one of mankind's great achievements ... and the Great Idea that No Man is Above The Law (enshrined in the Magna Carta in Runnymede in June, 1215-- by King John, stating that even HE, the King is not above the rule of law) ... What a great achievement ... Assisted suicide: Agree ... but the problem arises, when the person has not made their wishes known, and are not able to communicate ... In my opinion, if a person is brain-dead and there is no chance of recovery, then it is cruel to keep that person alive ... The spouse should decide, and then the family, in consultation with the doctors ... Politicos should stay out of it ... Interesting ... I would welcome your comments on what justification and circumstances a nation (in today's time) should enter into war ... and what rights does the world community have in agreeing or sanctioning unilateral warfare. Thanks, Sam posted by: DragonBait22 (reply) post date: 11.01.03 (1:26 pm) Reply to: SamAdams Thank you for your comments! I think I was speaking too quickly when I said freedom should not be limited; I meant that individual rights should not be violated and the government shouldn't interfere with individual freedom. Of course there are rules and laws for a reason, to prevent one person from violating the personal rights of another, such as murder or rape. So, what I meant by "freedom should not be limited" was really that the government shouldn't impose any laws that violate the individual's rights, so long as the actions of the individual do not violate the rights of other people. If that makes sense lol. Thanks for the added point on "cronyism" affirmative action lol. It sickens me that someone such as Dubya can attend a college based solely on the fact that his daddy also went there. Such things should be based on individual merit, not racial or social standings. I'll reply to the last part of your comment later. :) Your Name: Your Comment:

"Tragically, a nation that was created by intellectuals and visionaries has now been completely taken over by venal corporate gangsters, delusional Christian fruitcakes and hopelessly shallow Texas shit-kickers." -Tom Robbins