| Joelcool7 said: Wow you really don't have much solid arguments now that you start calling me a religious zealot to justify your stereo type of me. I really don't see the point in carrying on this off topic debate here in this thread. It is derailing the thread and really pointless considering your view about marriage not being controlled by the state, I completely agree. As for my opnion on your New South Wales premier I can't really comment since I have no freaking clue what your ethic classes teach or even for that matter what is being taught in the scripture classes. Am I happy? I have no clue and since I am not really even a Conservative outside of Canada I really can't form an opinion. To be honest I vote Conservative in Canada and would vote Democrat in the US, it all depends on the different views of the politician. I'm not a stereo typical Conservative infact a recent survey and poll I filled out classified me as a center right, barely to the right and another called me a center left. So being a right wing fanatic isn't exactly correct. Since you don't actually know me outside of my position on marriage and abortion you have no right to stereo type me. Just like I can't call you a left wing socialist nut job you have no right to call me a Conservative Religious zealot. Again just because we have different viewpoints doesn't mean we should attack each other. Theirs something called civil conversation, this is a debate. Please stop stereotyping me, I don't stereo type you and it gets way out of hand to do so on either of our behalfs! |
Ethics classes teach the establishment of moral udgement based on logic. For instance, stealing removes capital from the storeowner, thus raises the price so everyone else pays. Therefore, stealing is wrong. Scriptre uses the pathos method of persuasion to achieve this. (ie. Don't steal or you'll go to hell). Ethics is prefereable to me, because it gives understanding behind why things are wrong, but now NSW children will not be able to learn it, thanks to the Christian Democratic Party holding the state hostage in order to forcibly pass their ideals on in school. I apologise if I soudned more agressive than normal yesterday, but you must understand that this is an issue that infuriates me.
I don't generally "stereotype" without good reason, but let's look at the evidence, shall we?:
1. You're incredibly against the use of a word......a word and nothing more, for use in gay marriage.
2. You're reluctant to study the proven facts behind the origins of the Earth.
3. You seem to be very comfortable with the constitution containing the phrase of the use of "God's laws"
Now I don't say "oh he goes to church, therefore he's a religious zealot", but even you have to admit that that's a decent amount of evidence, and if th shoe fits....
On the other hand, you're not particularly innocent, either. Your claim to Atheist being a religion because of atheist houses being built? You're generalising the Atheist community, which are in fact in more than one group. The minority do the things you claim. The majority want nothing to do with the term religion itself, until substantial evidence tips in favour of a particular belief. It's like generalising that all muslims are terrorists, or all catholics are child molestors. Every group has it's bad eggs. Don't go generalising the entire group like that.
