US 2012 Presidential Election

[JadenxAtemYAOI]

By infuriating many people it spreads and by spreading your name around more people will want to learn more about you to either understand you or insult you further. Smart move really.

[Dark]

[b]FAIR WARNING[/b]: These arguments might be awkwardly wordy and redundant at times. I didn't really write this with any intention of editing it, so it came out as more of a stream of consciousness rather than an actual debate response. I apologize in advance.

Taking a break from college application essays to verbalize my opinions on... well, on this entire thread.

"And not all people who support traditional marriage necessarily "hate" gays, just saying. Homophobia is a serious problem, but it's become something of an overused buzzword."

I think that's a bit of a flawed view - you're saying that treating someone as a lesser being (that is, excluding them from certain human rights) isn't holding some sort of contempt for them. There are a lot of reasons posed as to why homosexuals should not be allowed marriage, but you trace them all back to the inherent belief that homosexuals are inferior. In fact, I honestly think "traditional marriage" has become a bit of a buzzword. If you really want traditional marriage, don't allow Muslims or Hindus to get married. But that's racist, and being racist is bad - being homophobic, however, is perfectly okay if you're a good, upstanding, religious Republican.

"Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters in the 90's"

I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul (though considering a modest portion of his views are socially liberal, I find myself agreeing with him on occasion), but I don't think point is fair to make. Back when the Republican debates were in the air, Ron Paul consistently held views that would help minorities - I think the best example of this is his view on the war on drugs. It's a failed war, sure, but the most important aspect that Ron Paul has alluded to is that a disproportionate amount of people in jail for drug use or possession are minorities - blacks, Hispanics, or really anyone who isn't white. Even if he did make some crude statements two decades ago, he more than made up for it last year.

"The theory of evolution still has a lot of gaps. And therefore, it has a lot of opposition. That's why people don't want it covered.

As for my opinion, I figure that people should be allowed to learn all about evolution and religious views. Science and religion don't have to clash, and ignorance is the one true evil in this situation."

Yeah, evolution does have a lot of gaps. But we've essentially proved microevolution (years ago, actually!), and macroevolution is a project that thousands of scientists are still working on. In terms of proof, the amount of proof in favor of macroevolution far surpasses the amount of proof available for creationism. In fact, creationism has no proof outside of a few religious texts and pro-creationist zealots. People don't want it covered because they feel it's an attack on their religion, which is fine, but we don't go to school to practice our religion.

Evolution should be taught in biology class, period. If you want to learn about religion and creationism, take a theology class. But not a Christian theology class - a broad, multi-faceted theology class. But I think most Christian zealots will oppose that, too, because we don't want our kids learning about Islam or Hinduism lest they become inferior.

"In 5 years, the theory of evolution might become outdated."

That's true of gravity, Newton's laws, and a bunch of other concepts in physics. The point is that we shouldn't weight evolution equally with creationism. Evolution has mounds of evidence while creationism has next-to-none. Science is different from religion in the sense that science doesn't mind admitting it's wrong. And kids go to school and hopefully learn that - if we find definitive evidence that evolution is wrong, we won't continue teaching our kids that. We'll hope they reject what we taught them earlier. Religion refuses to do that - whatever they say goes, and no one is even allowed to contradict them.

"I'm voting for Obama while firmly standing outside of the Democratic party"

What Democratic Party? On most political graphs, Obama and Romney are equally as conservative. They differ on a few key issues (healthcare!), but it's not like voting for Obama makes you any more liberal. I honestly believe we're nearing a one-party state, in essence, because the Democrats refuse to be liberal and the Republicans continue to be conservative.

"Relativity by dear boy. You must always consider that something is only batsh#t insane because of your own perspective."

The Ku Klux Klan is batshit insane. I don't care if they believe they are rational, because that isn't the case. As a society, we conform to a certain set of universal morals and anyone who rejects those morals are absolutely too radical. Society, at least in the past few decades, has realized that discrimination is not the sign of a cultured or developed nation, and we've since made progress to end discrimination against women, and blacks, and Hispanics. But we still have people who believe in Arizona's disgusting immigrant/immigration laws, and we still have people who believe that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry or adopt. Those might be opinions, but we can definitively say they are wrong opinions.

I dislike when people try to rationalize an argument by saying it's their opinion. It's my opinion that the sky is made out of cotton candy, but even if I believe it with all my heart and mind, no one else should. I'm wrong, and whether or not I admit I'm wrong, that fact remains true. Moral wrongs are more subjective, but we can say that whoever supports the KKK is wrong. It's a wrong opinion to have. It's a wrong stance to take.

"But then, atheism isn't a group the same as a religion."

Atheists are a collection of people who hold the same world view. In the broadest definitions of the word "religion," atheism is, in fact, a religion. Yet it has been shown time and time again that atheists, as a group, discriminate the least. Commit the least amount of crimes. Hold the most rational views. Are often more charitable than religious people. I'm not saying we're perfect, but at least we show that we're more cultured than religious zealots. (Though people who are mildly religious might as well be held in comparison to atheists, because they don't let their religion control their lives.)

"However, what atheism tends to want to kill quite vehemently is religion."

Most atheists could not care less what religion you are. We would just like you to not teach religion in schools. To treat all religions, including a lack thereof, equally. To not shove religion down the throats of policy-makers. To keep a separation between government and your personal beliefs.

You can go to church and pray to your god, but that church shouldn't be tax-exempt. You can hold religious ceremonies, as long as you don't patronize anyone (like, you know, show up to a veteran's funeral and lambast homosexuality). Basically, if you don't try to unfairly or wrongly influence someone else with your world view, no one cares what religion you are.
---

To stay remotely on topic, I'd probably associate more with Obama than Romney. I don't expect a huge change in Congress, so it's not like I expect Obama to get much done during his second term. But I'd rather have this nation flat line than fall into a huge gutter from which we can't be saved.

[bury the year]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1348338254' post='6029766']
Religion refuses to do that - whatever they say goes, and no one is even allowed to contradict them.
[/quote]

[i]"If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change."[/i] - Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama

Please stop generalizing religion. Radical Christian fundamentalism is one thing I cannot support in any form, but to say that all religion is close-minded and bigoted is insipid. This isn't Asiacentric, either: the Catholic Church and JPII has the doctrine that truth cannot contradict truth. Faith doesn't contradict science and vice versa, and it is entirely possible to live one's life while supporting both and making no amends for it.

[Dark]

[size=3]I didn't think of Buddhism when making that comment and thus cannot refute the former part of your argument.[/size]

[size=3]"[font=tahoma, helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Faith doesn't contradict science and vice versa, and it is entirely possible to live one's life while supporting both and making no amends for it."

That, however, doesn't sit well with me. Having faith in a supreme being doesn't contradict science, but many of the doctrines of modern religions do not fall in line with scientific principles. It is true that the only people who really reject science are religious zealots, but the people who lead religions are often religious zealots. There are obviously people in every religion (I'd hope to think the majority of religious people) who hold looser beliefs and don't hold a disbelief in evolution and other scientific principles, but the subjects of my posts are often (if not always) religious zealots. I think I even made a point to compare atheists to non-traditionalists in my post, somewhere.

The point I'm trying to make is that religions like Christianity and Islam and a whole host of other religions (it is my deep regret that Christianity is targeted the most in these topics, but it's a bit unavoidable), at least some factions therein, indoctrinate their believers into a certain method of thinking. If you were taught creationism as a child from a radical sect of Christianity, you will refuse to change even when provided evidence against your core beliefs. But the worst part is that the sect won't change, either.

You're making the argument that the [b]core[/b] beliefs of religion (don't kill, don't be an ass, repent for your mistakes) don't contradict science, and in that sense I would agree entirely. But unfortunately religion is defined by more than just the moral code it sets forth.[/font][/size]

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Dark' timestamp='1348338254' post='6029766']
"And not all people who support traditional marriage necessarily "hate" gays, just saying. Homophobia is a serious problem, but it's become something of an overused buzzword."

I think that's a bit of a flawed view - you're saying that treating someone as a lesser being (that is, excluding them from certain human rights)
[/quote]

No, treating them as a lesser being is indeed holding some form of contempt for them. That's not what I meant.

And the financial benefits of marriage aren't exactly what I would consider "human rights." In the past I've made clear my views on the subject and I do support everyone being put on the same level, but even though I disagree with the stance, trying to restrict financial benefits is not, in my opinion, treating someone as an inferior being. It's not so much that people are trying to go after gay individuals, (a lot of people do, but I digress,) so much that Christians in the USA have a tendency to expect their beliefs to be reflected at a federal level, whilst ignoring the first amendment.


Either way, the topic is hardly relevant as neither canidate will get anything done in relation to the marriage issue.


[b]Edit: [/b]I thought of a comparison. I person could be an animal rights advocate and support vegetarianism as a live style, but that person would not neccessarilly consider people who eat meat as lesser beings.

[Bull3tM0nk3y]

Dark, they do have have to fight.

Region:

"The world was made 6000/10000 years ago by a man with a long beard!"

Science:

The world was made from a protoplanetary disk spinning around our newly formed sun about 4.54 Billion years ago.

Region:

"Being gay is unnatural!"

Science:

Gay animals exist in over 300 creatures.

Region:

"We were made by a God!"

Science:

We evolved from a ancestor along with our cousins the ape/monkey family.



I know I sound like an irrational bigot, but it's the truth. Everyday this happens. And it is. Fighting myth with truth is a hard fact of life.

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Voltaire & JoCo' timestamp='1348718209' post='6033069']
Dark, they do have have to fight.

Region:

"The world was made 6000/10000 years ago by a man with a long beard!"

Science:

The world was made from a protoplanetary disk spinning around our newly formed sun about 4.54 Billion years ago.

Region:

"Being gay is unnatural!"

Science:

Gay animals exist in over 300 creatures.

Region:

"We were made by a God!"

Science:

We evolved from a ancestor along with our cousins the ape/monkey family.



I know I sound like an irrational bigot, but it's the truth. Everyday this happens. And it is. Fighting myth with truth is a hard fact of life.
[/quote]
Misspelling must also be a hard fact of life for you.

Let people believe what they want please and stop waving your Atheist flag around like it matters in any way. You aren't solving anything with your Anti-Religious rhetoric, you're just being an ignorant jerk (You remind me of me in too many ways). This topic is about the United States 2012 Presidential Election, not Religion VS Science. Get with the program or I am reporting you because I am sick of seeing every debate topic segwaying into Religious arguments. No matter how much you banter on about oh glorious science, you cannot prove that God does or does not exist and that is a fact.

[Bull3tM0nk3y]

[quote name='Izaya Orihara' timestamp='1348773230' post='6033359']
Misspelling must also be a hard fact of life for you.

Let people believe what they want please and stop waving your Atheist flag around like it matters in any way. You aren't solving anything with your Anti-Religious rhetoric, you're just being an ignorant jerk (You remind me of me in too many ways). This topic is about the United States 2012 Presidential Election, not Religion VS Science. Get with the program or I am reporting you because I am sick of seeing every debate topic segwaying into Religious arguments. No matter how much you banter on about oh glorious science, you cannot prove that God does or does not exist and that is a fact.
[/quote]

Fine...

And it's not every topic. [size=1][color=#ffffff]Ya douche. [/color][/size]

[Dark]

Oh, I'm sorry - we're not allowed to discuss religion? Well, isn't that a shame? I guess I'll have to stop talking it, then...

So, guys, let's discuss something [i]actually[/i] on-topic! Considering the Republican camp has made it so evident that Romney, though a Mormon, is a good Christian citizen, I pose the following question: should prospective voters care about the religion of each candidate? And should voters be turned on or turned off by the fact that some politicians (namely Republicans in die-hard red states) claim that their religion will influence their political decisions?

</troll>

[Bull3tM0nk3y]

Good? GOOD!?

Prove it.


Oh. [/troll] I see.

[Lonk]

I have to say that Romney's chances of winning are diminishing every passing day. He made himself look like an idiot when he made those comments about "The Innocence of Muslims" controversy and the 47% situation that happened. He's being a hypocritical person, and he is making less sense in the race than he was earlier. Looks like Obama is going to get that 2nd term after all.

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Tentalus Therapist' timestamp='1348853388' post='6033895']
He made himself look like an idiot when he made those comments about "The Innocence of Muslims" controversy
[/quote]

Uh, how exactly? All he said that he wishes people wouldn't do that. :3

[Lonk]

[quote name='Comrade TentaSparkle' timestamp='1348861371' post='6033976']
Uh, how exactly? All he said that he wishes people wouldn't do that. :3
[/quote]

From what I have heard on the news, it made him look quite terrible, especially when compared to how Obama handled the situation.

[.Spock]

What Rinne said was one of the first things my mother taught me growing up. She always gave me free choice over what religion, if any, I chose to follow. I followed Buddhism because it made the most sense.

At least Dark admitted he was wrong, though.

Anyway; I don't trouble myself on elections and such. I'm too young to vote so I figure I'll just live the next year without any worries of elections as I have no input on what happens in them.

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Tentalus Therapist' timestamp='1348883584' post='6034241']
From what I have heard on the news, it made him look quite terrible, especially when compared to how Obama handled the situation.
[/quote]

Out of curiosity, what news station was it? Go read an article and find an actual quote, it wasn't that bad.

[Legend Zero]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/25/mitt-romney-tax-returns-2011_n_1913754.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D211410

If this is the unbiased truth then Mitt, please, stop.

[Lonk]

[quote name='Comrade TentaSparkle' timestamp='1348931300' post='6034527']
Out of curiosity, what news station was it? Go read an article and find an actual quote, it wasn't that bad.
[/quote]

It was from MSNBC. Not sure if they are biased against Romney's campaign (I've seen shades of it though, with a segment specifically called (yet fits in an epic fashion) called "Romney vs. Romney). However, I just feel that Romney is digging himself a grave, while Obama is just shoveling the dirt in while Romney is digging into it.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

MSNBC is known to be Liberal like Fox News is known to be Conservative.

[CrystalCyae]

I'm just gonna say that if I was an American citizen and old enough to vote, Obama all the way. Because, out of the things I've seen and such, he's the best option.
Plus, an article I read this morning - Digital version Here [url="http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/09/23/andrew-sullivan-on-the-promise-of-obama-s-second-term.html"]http://www.thedailyb...econd-term.html[/url]- made a few very good points towards what a second term would do for Obama, such as being able to give him time to do the things he has promised he would.

[Agro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hDTT1yRNsFE

[Tentacruel]

[quote name='Tentalus Therapist' timestamp='1348962735' post='6034855']
It was from MSNBC. Not sure if they are biased against Romney's campaign (I've seen shades of it though, with a segment specifically called (yet fits in an epic fashion) called "Romney vs. Romney). However, I just feel that Romney is digging himself a grave, while Obama is just shoveling the dirt in while Romney is digging into it.
[/quote]
MSNBC is going to twist it against Romney as bad as Fox will twist it against Obama. Disregard anything they say.

[Lonk]

[quote name='Comrade TentaSparkle' timestamp='1348983428' post='6034996']
MSNBC is going to twist it against Romney as bad as Fox will twist it against Obama. Disregard anything they say.
[/quote]

Good enough for me. So they both are on different sides of the same coin I guess.

Regardless, I'm going to vote for Obama, just because he needs the time to make all of his promises come true (and it looks like he will do so).

[Darth Revan of the Sith]

[quote name='Tentalus Therapist' timestamp='1349019224' post='6035131']
Good enough for me. So they both are on different sides of the same coin I guess.

Regardless, I'm going to vote for Obama, just because he needs the time to make all of his promises come true (and it looks like he will do so).
[/quote]
The problem is though...
While Fox does tend to twist the coin against Obama, MSNBC not only tends to attack Romney but attacks Fox News as well. MSNBC sometimes has a segment where the point out the factual inaccuracies on Fox's programs.

[Agro]

[quote name='Comrade TentaSparkle' timestamp='1348983428' post='6034996']
Disregard anything they say.
[/quote]That's never a good plan. No matter who they are.

They may be biased, but they're not always wrong. Same with Fox News... though I still think that Fox News is worse than MSNBC.

[Lonk]

[quote name='Agro' timestamp='1349026204' post='6035183']
That's never a good plan. No matter who they are.

They may be biased, but they're not always wrong. Same with Fox News... though I still think that Fox News is worse than MSNBC.
[/quote]

So what you are saying is that, out of the two stations, MSNBC is the most credible?