• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California [W:381]

Um, religion cannot be rationalized, it is based on belief. That is not a matter of opinion. You cannot prove god exists, you can only believe it.

You can't handle the truth. Sorry, couldn't resist.

There are many things we believe rationally that we can't prove. A belief in God can be quite rational. For me is quite rational. In fact to me not believing would be irrational based on my experience. If you personally can't come to that rational conclusion it isn't my problem.
 
He's right, you know.... they were "progressives". Granted, the progressives got duped by Hitler and came to regret it but it was with the progressives behind him that he came to power. After he got in power, of course, things went haywire, but you can't absolve progressive socialists entirely because they were the wind under Hitler's wings.

Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazism, or National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus, the first part pronounced as "Nazi"), is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.[1] It was the ideology of the Nazi Party in Germany and related movements elsewhere.[2][3][4][5][6] Nazism developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the far-right Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany.[7] It was designed to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism.[8] Major elements of Nazism have been described as far-right, such as allowing domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior, who were said to be a threat to national survival.[9][10] Both the Nazi Party and the Nazi-led state were organized under the Führer principle ("leader principle"), a pyramidal structure with the Führer - Adolf Hitler - at the top, who appointed subordinate leaders for all branches of the party and the state and whose orders had the force of law.[11]

Nazism claimed that an Aryan master race was superior to all other races.[12] To maintain what it regarded as the purity and strength of the Aryan race, Nazis sought to exterminate Jews and Romani, and the physically and mentally disabled.[13] Other ethnic and social groups deemed "degenerate" or 'inferior' received exclusionary treatment, including homosexuals, blacks, Jehovah's Witnesses, slavs,[14][15] and political opponents.[13] The Nazis supported territorial expansionism. According to Nazi ideology, the gaining of Lebensraum ("living space") is a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races — who, as they grow in population size and face overpopulation in their territory, expand their territory and displace peoples of inferior races.[16]

Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class struggle and instead promoted the idea of Volksgemeinschaft ("people's community"). Nazis wanted to overcome social divisions which they considered artificial; instead, all parts of the racially homogenous society should cooperate for national unity.[17] Nazism denounced both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism.[18] Like other fascist movements, Nazism supported the outlawing of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers, because these were regarded as a threat to national unity.[19] Instead, the state controlled and approved wage and salary levels.[19]

Does that really sound progressive? Really?

I wouldn't go so far as to criticize the right because the Nazi animals had some ideological similarities... but if we're going to compare them to something lets be honest about what they were closest to.
 
You can't handle the truth. Sorry, couldn't resist.

There are many things we believe rationally that we can't prove. A belief in God can be quite rational. For me is quite rational. In fact to me not believing would be irrational based on my experience. If you personally can't come to that rational conclusion it isn't my problem.
Um, no one can come up with a proof of the existence of any god....that is what makes it a belief.

You are using the term rational without understanding it's meaning.
 
Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Does that really sound progressive? Really?

Where it ended up isn't where it began, Verax. It might require more intellectual honesty than you're willing to sacrifice to admit it, but Hitler came to power under the progressive socialist wing and by espousing progressive socialist ideals. As I said before, it would be wrong to assert that Hitler's regime was some inevitable course of progressive socialism, but it's also wrong to deny that's where it started.
 
Where it ended up isn't where it began, Verax. It might require more intellectual honesty than you're willing to sacrifice to admit it, but Hitler came to power under the progressive socialist wing and by espousing progressive socialist ideals. As I said before, it would be wrong to assert that Hitler's regime was some inevitable course of progressive socialism, but it's also wrong to deny that's where it started.
Um, no, fascism was based upon corporatism (state/industrialism combine) and the NAZI party drew from the rw and military/police elements of German society. NAZI's were killing German socialists in the streets before 1932 and did not stop doing so until '45.

But hey, keep on with the Godwin way...
 
Where it ended up isn't where it began, Verax. It might require more intellectual honesty than you're willing to sacrifice to admit it, but Hitler came to power under the progressive socialist wing and by espousing progressive socialist ideals. As I said before, it would be wrong to assert that Hitler's regime was some inevitable course of progressive socialism, but it's also wrong to deny that's where it started.

It started with "progressive" ideals??? Where on earth are you getting this from? Please show some evidence of this.
 
Um, no one can come up with a proof of the existence of any god....that is what makes it a belief.

You are using the term rational without understanding it's meaning.

Correct, but the belief can be quite rational. Don't miss the point. My life experiences point to the God I believe exists. No scientific study or evidence shows him to be a figment of the imagination.
Is that not then a rational decision for me?
 
I know, it is terrible of me to suggest in any way shape or manner that discrimination towards homosexuals....could be explained by bigotry!


The vapors!.... where are the smelling salts?!?
That's not what you did.

You wrote:
I'm pretty sure that those who have opposition to SSM is primarily due to their bigoted views of homosexuals.
SSM is not homosexuality,it is what homosexuals what to do (and those of us who are straight who support them on that).

There are those here who oppose SSM on religious reasons.

You made a very broad generalization.That's not cool.
Unless,of course,you can provide evidence that in fact every person on this planet that opposes SSM are in fact doing it primarily due to bigotry.
 
Correct, but the belief can be quite rational. Don't miss the point. My life experiences point to the God I believe exists. No scientific study or evidence shows him to be a figment of the imagination.
Is that not then a rational decision for me?

My kid believed in the tooth fairy and no scientific study or evidence proved her otherwise, so her belief was rational, right?
 
No....I think that pretty much is the case. We have had all kinds of stupid initiatives make the ballot, because they are almost always written by special interests who haven't a clue about the law....the state has spend billions defending clearly unconstitutional initiatives that have been placed on the ballot by these fools.

I was convinced that there was some kind of review process, but when I went looking I came up with Jack and ****. My bad.
 
That's not what you did.

You wrote:

SSM is not homosexuality,it is what homosexuals what to do (and those of us who are straight who support them on that).

There are those here who oppose SSM on religious reasons.

You made a very broad generalization.That's not cool.
Unless,of course,you can provide evidence that in fact every person on this planet that opposes SSM are in fact doing it primarily due to bigotry.

Bigotry couched in religion is still bigotry. A lot of the racial bigots discriminated because their religion told them so. This is no different. Bigotry is bigotry....period.
 
My kid believed in the tooth fairy and no scientific study or evidence proved her otherwise, so her belief was rational, right?

Your child's belief in the tooth fairy is rational. You told your child the tooth fairy exists. Your child believed you wouldn't lie to them. Your child's belief is rational. Of course, one day, your child will realize that you lied about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and, therefore, possibly everything.... and then your child's distrust in what you say will be equally rational.
 
Your child's belief in the tooth fairy is rational. You told your child the tooth fairy exists. Your child believed you wouldn't lie to them. Your child's belief is rational. Of course, one day, your child will realize that you lied about the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and, therefore, possibly everything.... and then your child's distrust in what you say will be equally rational.

So the moral of the story is the church is probably lying to you? Lol, hey you're FINALLY starting to make some sense, well done. :doh
 
Bigotry couched in religion is still bigotry. A lot of the racial bigots discriminated because their religion told them so. This is no different. Bigotry is bigotry....period.

Fully agree.
May I point out that a lot of is not the same as all of .

What Gimmesometruth wrote was a very broad generalization.And whether or not Gimmesometruth intended it or not,broad generalizations are themselves bigoted.
 
So the moral of the story is the church is probably lying to you? Lol, hey you're FINALLY starting to make some sense, well done. :doh

No, the fact that you DID lie to your children is not proof that the church is lying to it's followers. I find much of the church teaching to be suspect, but logically speaking, your statement.... well, just isn't. Logical, that is. It seems to be a trend with you. I'd suggest taking some classes in logic. They would help you make arguments that aren't silly at face value. And this coming from someone who holds a lot of religious doctrine in high suspicion.
 
No, the fact that you DID lie to your children is not proof that the church is lying to it's followers. I find much of the church teaching to be suspect, but logically speaking, your statement.... well, just isn't. Logical, that is. It seems to be a trend with you. I'd suggest taking some classes in logic. They would help you make arguments that aren't silly at face value. And this coming from someone who holds a lot of religious doctrine in high suspicion.

Again you bring up an anecdotal story about telling a tooth fairy tale to my child and emphasize my "lying" as a wedge to attack me, stay classy.

Apparently you didn't catch the joke and thought it was my best argument as you tried to counter it, lol, so let me set you straight.

Look up the definition of rationality, let me do it for you.

Rationality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In its primary sense, rationality is a normative concept that philosophers have generally tried to characterize in such a way that, for any action, belief, or desire, if it is rational we ought to choose it.[1] It is a normative concept of reasoning in the sense that rational people should derive conclusions in a consistent way given the ,information at disposal. According to the philosophical theory of justification, it refers to the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, or of one's actions with one's reasons for action. However, the term "rationality" tends to be used differently in different disciplines, including specialized discussions of economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. The philosophy of critical rationalism takes this principle to the extreme and argues that decisions made without any reasons at all or even based on supposed irrationality, are yet rational; instead, irrationality in this context means not to change the decision once it turns out to be non-optimal to achieve a goal, or to solve a problem.

The relevant theme here is that for religion to be rational you need to have good reasons to believe it is the truth. So the logical answer to this would be a plethora of evidence supporting the church's positions, which there is none. This is in stark contrast to the original statement of "you can't prove god doesn't exist" as an argument for "rationality". You see these are very different ideas.

You can't have it both ways saying that an unfalsifiable belief is rational.
 
Correct, but the belief can be quite rational.
You can rationalize your belief, but you cannot make your religion, a belief in a supernatural entity, rational. It is still a belief system.

That is why you should not base law upon beliefs, as anything can be rationalized.
 
That's not what you did.
Of course I did, I said the opposition to SSM is based on bigotry of homosexuals.

You wrote:
I know what I wrote

SSM is not homosexuality
I did not say it was, you are not reading what I wrote.


,it is what homosexuals what (sic) to do
Um, it is one of the things some of them do....but go on..
(and those of us who are straight who support them on that).
Which would not be the bigots who I was referring to.

There are those here who oppose SSM on religious reasons.
Yes, and the discrimination is justified on irrational beliefs.....and that is bigotry.

You made a very broad generalization.That's not cool.
What isn't cool is thinking that a religious viewpoint rationalizes discrimination, that same rationalization was at the heart of the banning of interracial marriage.
Unless,of course,you can provide evidence that in fact every person on this planet that opposes SSM are in fact doing it primarily due to bigotry.
I said I am pretty sure, it is an opinion, I have seen nothing from you to dissuade me to think otherwise.
 
To cheers, same-sex marriages resume in California

Omg, I just blew snot bubbles out of my nose. Wow that's quite the credible source you have there. A page with "Temcat's Mews"... lol. Please don't link to a religious site with an anonymous pdf including the words Nazi and Progressive as evidence. I can read it real quick but... I... suspect this will be a waste of time.

I see. All you have is logical fallacy ad hominem; discredit the source. Within that article is a firsthand recount of events leading up to Hitler's rise to power. You should read it and learn something instead of sticking your head in the sand because the truth doesn't suit you.
 
I see. All you have is logical fallacy ad hominem; discredit the source. Within that article is a firsthand recount of events leading up to Hitler's rise to power. You should read it and learn something instead of sticking your head in the sand because the truth doesn't suit you.

Oh please, save your sob story. Its an anecdotal account from a single perspective. Its okay to read and consider but it means piddly squat as hard evidence. What is the reputation of the author? Are they a respected historian? For all we know they could be an idiot. The whole thing is wrapped in a website that is presented in a silly, whimsical manner that also involves bible verses. I'm supposed to bow down to this and consider it a gold standard source? Give me a break, its ridiculous.
 
Oh please, save your sob story. Its an anecdotal account from a single perspective. Its okay to read and consider but it means piddly squat as hard evidence. What is the reputation of the author? Are they a respected historian? For all we know they could be an idiot. The whole thing is wrapped in a website that is presented in a silly, whimsical manner that also involves bible verses. I'm supposed to bow down to this and consider it a gold standard source? Give me a break, its ridiculous.

Oh, for God's sake, get real. You asked for some evidence, not rock solid incontrovertible proof so strong that even you couldn't possibly ignore it no matter how far you crawled up into your shell or how many deadbolts you put on the door. I realize that nothing can prove to you something you don't want to accept as reality. I just gave you something that you should have found interesting and informative if you actually gave a rats ass about what really happened.
 
Oh, for God's sake, get real. You asked for some evidence, not rock solid incontrovertible proof so strong that even you couldn't possibly ignore it no matter how far you crawled up into your shell or how many deadbolts you put on the door. I realize that nothing can prove to you something you don't want to accept as reality. I just gave you something that you should have found interesting and informative if you actually gave a rats ass about what really happened.

You're the one that claimed Hitler used progressive ideology to launch his rise to power and genocide. If you're going to make such a bold claim the onus is on you.
 
Back
Top Bottom