• 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!

Political ideal that is most out of touch with reality

What opinion is most out of touch with reality?

  • R-Global Warming is not man made

    Votes: 8 22.2%

  • L-Global Warming is 100% man made

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • R-Abortion kills a human

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • L-Unborn human rights are trumped by a woman's right to choose

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • R-Lower taxation equals economic freedom and greater equality in opportunity

    Votes: 3 8.3%

  • L-Higher taxation for certain tax brackets is fair because it helps the poor

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • R-Immigration is a good thing, but those that broke the law should not be rewarded

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • L-Immigration laws should not be enforced

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • R-Religious freedom is absolute (i.e. traditional marriage, creationism, young Earth)

    Votes: 6 16.7%

  • L-Secular values trump religious freedom (i.e. gay marriage, evolution, big bang)

    Votes: 2 5.6%
  • Total voters
    36
TacticalEvilDan said:
I'm pretty sure that what you think of as a "freedom" most people consider "priviledge."
Click to expand...

Nope. Privilege is what you get with UHC. You have the privilege of living so long as the government bureaucracy continues to fund your health care.
 
Hatuey said:
That does not say humans are 100% responsible for global warming.
Click to expand...

The absence of other factors in their explanation of global warming implies such.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Uh...no. The Constitution did not establish a secular society. The Constitution recognized the right to believe as you wish with regards to religion.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm using the wrong words and causing confusion, sorry about that. The Constitution didn't establish a society free of religion, it established a society with a secular bedrock and asserted the right of the individual to overlay whatever religion they wanted in their own lives.
 
shrubnose said:
We could make it just a little more clear that NO religion has any right to try to shove its ideas down anyone's throat.
Click to expand...
What about other ideologies other than religion? Should, for example, atheism have the right to shove its ideas down anyone's throat? 'Cause it seems it has that right in America.
 
ksu_aviator said:
The absence of other factors in their explanation of global warming implies such.
Click to expand...

That's your interpretation of what is being said. They're arguing that we should curb the damage that is done by us. Which is substantial. Now, can you find that 100% figure anywhere? No? Then what you believe is implied is useless.
 
cabse5 said:
What about other ideologies other than religion?
Should, for example, atheism have the right to shove its ideas down anyone's throat?
Click to expand...
 'Cause it seems it has that right in America.
Click to expand...




Who is going to try to shut it up in the USA?

Do you want to give it a shot?




"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent." ~ Marie
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
The absence of other factors in their explanation of global warming implies such.
Click to expand...
Off the top of my head, I can list a non-manmade factor that causes global cooling:
Just about any substance shot high enough into earth's 'sphere causes cooling. Sidenote: It's been scientifically proven that SO2 shot high enough into earth's 'sphere causes rain.

Of course, environmentalists won't agree with shooting substances high into earth's 'sphere to cool the earth because
that wouldn't attempt to return earth's 'sphere to a more pristine state (which is environmentalist's goal, rather than preventing global warming).
 
nm......
 
shrubnose said:
Who is going to try to shut it up in the USA?

Do you want to give it a shot?




"Man has created God in his own image: Intolerant, sexist, homophobic and violent." ~ Marie
Click to expand...
Why not have religious and non-religious scenes at public places?
Why not have schools celebrate religious and non-religious holidays during the last few days of December?

I could get into the interpretation of the separation of church and state (church is to be eliminated from state - an atheist belief) interpreted incorrectly from the founding fathers (Madison).
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
To correct the ill conceived poll in this sub forum, I have proposed the above poll. Vote as you may.
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that both political ought to work together to solve this countries problems. But as you state, that is totally out touch with reality. More than anything else you mention in your poll.
 
cabse5 said:
Why not having religious and non-religious scenes at public places?
Why not having schools celebrate religious and non-religious holidays during the last few days of December?

I could get into the intrepetation of the separation of church and state (church is to be eliminated from state) that was interpreted incorrectly from the founding fathers (Madison).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




You have my permission to waste your time on whatever time-wasting malarkey that you want to waste your time on.




"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." ~ John Adams. 2nd President of the United States.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
In other words, limited by law. Just like you defined "freedoms."
Click to expand...

No. Given by law.

Rights - inherent, free from restriction, cannot be regulated
Freedoms - not inherent, restricted, fully to partially unregulated
Privileges - given, highly restricted, fully regulated
 
shrubnose said:
You have my permission to waste your time on whatever time-wasting malarkey that you want to waste your time on.




"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." ~ John Adams. 2nd President of the United States.
Click to expand...
So I have a shot changing your mind, eh?
 
Madison was, by far, the leading forefather authority on the separation of church and state, and he didn't say anything that remotely resembled your sig that was a cherrypicked quote from Adams, shrubnose.
 
cabse5 said:
Madison was, by far, the leading forefather authority on the separation of church and state, and he didn't say anything that remotely resembled your sig that was a cherrypicked quote from Adams, shrubnose
Click to expand...
.
Click to expand...





You have the 1st Amendment right to believe whatever you want to believe and to try and spread your gospel, but don't expect the entire population of the USA to fall in line behind you shouting "Alleluia" anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
ksu_aviator said:
No. Given by law.

Rights - inherent, free from restriction, cannot be regulated
Freedoms - not inherent, restricted, fully to partially unregulated
Privileges - given, highly restricted, fully regulated
Click to expand...

By your own words, at least some freedoms are equivalent to privileges.
 
ksu_aviator said:
Rights are inherent and are only limited by other peoples' rights. Freedoms are not inherent and are limited by law.
Click to expand...

No. That's a popular fantasy but it's just not true. Rights, like everything else in human society, are made up by people and enforced by social pressure. They are not inherent. If they were, they wouldn't change. They wouldn't vary from culture to culture, from group to group. They would be consistent across the board and they're just not. There is no evidence whatsoever that rights are any more than a human invention.

Now, we create laws to prevent one individual from violating another individual's/individuals' rights. But those laws are meant to preserve rights, not limit (whether or not they meet that goal is another story).
Click to expand...

No, we create laws largely to codify rights and control behavior. Rights are never unlimited.

Simple example. Right to life is inherent. No one can violate that right unless their right to life is being threatened. Freedom to participate in commerce is heavily regulated. While you can participate you can only participate as the government sees fit.
Click to expand...

Prove it. Prove that the "right to life" is inherent. Where is your evidence? Belief doesn't count. People can and do violate that right on a regular basis, whether you like it or not. Repeating your emotionally-comforting mantra doesn't make it so.
 
Hatuey said:
That does not say humans are 100% responsible for global warming.
Click to expand...

Nor is it likely that humans are significantly responsible for modern global warming. If we look back through the historical record, we find that these things happen in cycles. There has been global warming and global cooling for millions and millions of years, long before humans existed or had any significant technical abilities to change the worldwide weather. Of course, lots of people ignore these facts because it doesn't fit into their political ideology.
 
ksu_aviator said:
To correct the ill conceived poll in this sub forum, I have proposed the above poll. Vote as you may.
Click to expand...

Of the positions listed, each can have a logical, coherent argument made in its' favor.

I would propose one that is not up there: The idea that we do not have to reduce expenditures on our entitlement programs. Mathematically, this is simply out of touch with reality, but large portions of the electorate and our political leadership continue to insist that they will be able to have reality not effect us.... because they want to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom