| Welcome to Round Table Knights Clan. Enjoy your visit! |
| So I was thinking | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 11 2011, 01:09 AM (1,598 Views) | |
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 11 2011, 01:09 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
RTK should be split into 4 factions, RTK Left Flank, RTK Right Flank, RTK Swing Voters and RTK Silent Majority Whatcha think? |
![]() |
|
| tehReal~ChaZZZy | Jun 11 2011, 01:21 AM Post #2 |
|
Cole and Galahad would be pretty lonely then cuz they'd be the only 2 on RTK right, and everyone else would be RTK left.
|
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Jun 11 2011, 06:09 AM Post #3 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
No... there would be three groups.... American leftists, American rightists, and then the sane and/or lazy people. |
![]() |
|
| Cole Stark of WinterFell | Jun 11 2011, 07:08 AM Post #4 |
|
Retired Knight's Apprentice
|
lol |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 11 2011, 08:29 AM Post #5 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Ah Chazzzy, instinctively jumping to snatch underdog sympathy.
|
![]() |
|
| tehReal~ChaZZZy | Jun 13 2011, 09:44 PM Post #6 |
|
Methinks Proxy would be classified center left swing voter. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 14 2011, 12:36 AM Post #7 |
|
Master of Spam
|
I wonder who you'd find to vote for in Holland.
|
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 14 2011, 01:10 AM Post #8 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, obviously! |
![]() |
|
| Pete of Yorkshire | Jun 14 2011, 03:09 AM Post #9 |
|
Knight
|
dutch christians spoiling everyones fun
|
![]() |
|
| Abu of Agrabah | Jun 14 2011, 08:55 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Knight of the Round Table
|
If you see where right partys stands for in holland every party in holland compared to the USA is left, with our communist party not only communist but a complete totalitatian movement. I vote as much right as possible in Holland, which is Geert Wilders, anti-europe, anti-immigration, neutral on weed, anti-art which is heavily payd by our government, and basically, follow the flow of the money. But as said, even this party want centralised pensions, the health care for everyone(we pay 1500 euro a year for all-inclusive health, we pay 1800 euro for a university year), giving money to sick and more left thoughts which are also fine in my opinion
|
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 14 2011, 10:15 AM Post #11 |
|
Master of Spam
|
See what Abu said.
|
![]() |
|
| Paul of Exidur | Jun 15 2011, 06:20 PM Post #12 |
|
Retired Knight
|
I don't want to jump in these threads but I'm curious what is the anti-Europe stance of Wilders? Anti-immigration is pretty self explanatory but not sure what anti-Europe would entail. |
![]() |
|
| tehReal~ChaZZZy | Jun 15 2011, 09:43 PM Post #13 |
|
The forums I read where there are lots of European contributors tend to have strong sentiments against the EU. Many Europeans seem to be against the increasing loss of sovereignty and national 'identity' to EU officials. Here's a good video that explains some of the problems: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkSIerYCXOA |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 15 2011, 09:54 PM Post #14 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
I am strongly conservative, but my views are not the norm. As a limited federal government guy, I break from the norm on these off the top of my head: Drugs leagailzed Gay marrige allowed Abortion's allowed from rape or health of mother. I want them done in a hospital though..no abortion clinics. I think those are biblical stances too. I knw there is more. The fact is, I dont want the right or the left legislating morality and gettin in my business. Each side says, I dont want gov't in my biz, but this......(fill in blank) Both right and left have sacred cows, and I want all of it to go by by. By by |
![]() |
|
| Mercurius of Cappadocia | Jun 15 2011, 10:36 PM Post #15 |
|
King of the Round Table Knights
|
We'd probably agree on rights of privacy and property, among many others. |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 16 2011, 06:19 AM Post #16 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
yupper. i actually think there is a large amount of agreement the right and left share in principle. I would actuallyrather live in a world with a higher chance of WMD going off but a very free society than a less free world with a lower chance. Once we lose our rights, they are gone...but we can always rebuild from a destrction. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 16 2011, 10:48 AM Post #17 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Ahh, did I start a thread of conciliation by accident?
|
![]() |
|
| Pete of Yorkshire | Jun 16 2011, 11:11 AM Post #18 |
|
Knight
|
i never understud this view point. so your stance is abortiont it is wrong but ok if its rape. its a very gray area. just seems hipocritical from a religious point of view. surely the child shouldnt be punished for some low life and what is the diffrence if some kid has too much to drink and gets knocked up with no way of suppoting the child is that when you would say tough titty? or give it to child care? surely that would have repercusions on the child and the mother. wouldnt giving them a choice before the child is even grown to the point of it being self aware be better. i just think its outragous that you can tell someone what to do with there own bodies. also i think the clinics are there so people can come to them in the knowledge that they are safe and not going to get any repurcussions from bible nuts. i don't know exacly how the system is over there but over here its not a big deal as you americans make it out to be. lol i don't think iv'e ever seen a group of protestors outside a clinic over here. but w/e i look forward to being enlightend. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 16 2011, 11:59 AM Post #19 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
But it's not their own body Pete, it's another human being. And before you say no it's not. What is the point of an abortion? To not have a child. If it's not a child, why do you need an abortion? It is a big deal here pete, millions of people thinking the only reason you use a condom is for std's and self-control is for weirdo's. Thousands of girls murdering their first child and living with that for their entire lives. Just because nobody in the media or politics has the guts to talk about it doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Gala's attitude to rape victims is hardly hypocritical, sometimes the options are so [potentially] equally awful you just have to compromise. As for going into care, being adopted or fostered, I fail to see how that's damaging, though it would damage the mother yes, almost invariably parents who give up their children harbour a desire to see/have them again even if they don't do anything about it. But atleast they have the option of seeing the child again. |
![]() |
|
| Elrich of Gaul | Jun 16 2011, 12:01 PM Post #20 |
|
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
|
its a very gray area. just seems hipocritical from a religious point of view. ... not going to get any repurcussions from bible nuts.... [/QUOTE] Elrich.... <-------------------- "Bible nut" I'm all for topical debates, but don't be dissin' other peeps beliefs... <_< Let's keep it clean.. :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 16 2011, 12:09 PM Post #21 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
<---------------- Giggled. |
![]() |
|
| Elrich of Gaul | Jun 16 2011, 01:51 PM Post #22 |
|
Former Knight and Honored King of Old
|
Dag :rolleyes: |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 16 2011, 02:33 PM Post #23 |
|
Master of Spam
|
The rape child is not murdered any less than the love child. Right? RIGHT? Another human being, no? What about married rape, may the wife abort the child of her husband? |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 16 2011, 06:07 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Well, I gotta say, I disagree with Gala - I don't think rape victims should be allowed to abort either, but I don't see that the position is hypocritical. Moral value judgements secular or otherwise never ever cover all situations without qualification. Morals aren't rational constructs. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 16 2011, 06:17 PM Post #25 |
|
Master of Spam
|
If moral values can be compromised, then anti-abortion has no argument. |
![]() |
|
| Dagonet of Rus | Jun 16 2011, 06:25 PM Post #26 |
![]()
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
What a silly thing to say Din. |
![]() |
|
| Dinadan of Logris | Jun 16 2011, 07:35 PM Post #27 |
|
Master of Spam
|
Come up with it then
|
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 16 2011, 11:37 PM Post #28 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
As far as abortion goes.....personally, I am pro life across the board. I think abortion is murder. However... Since not everyone shares that opinion in my country, and we are not a theocracy, then I think suitable compromise is the health of mother and rape. If that were the only criteria for an abortion, than the abortion rater would prolly drop by 95%.....to me, that is a good start. Now, Din asked about rape of a wife. Dunno.....I guess in the end, rape is rape. The issue I am talking about is greatly to reduce abortions but have a fair compromise for regular folks who are torn on this issue. So while any abortion is a big deal, that legislation may be a good common ground.
|
![]() |
|
| Pete of Yorkshire | Jun 17 2011, 02:08 AM Post #29 |
|
Knight
|
when i said you it wasn't aimed at gala it was the royal you lol i mean't as dag says that religon says all life is sacred or what have you. what i mean't is that americans are more vocal on the subject. also to be the devils advocate there is the pro choice view point of the world overpopulation,drain on resources we need to extend or rebuild to survive as a speices. or we devolp to the point were we can produce clean global renewable energy. which will take time. don't bite my head off im only being the devils advocate.
|
![]() |
|
| Pete of Yorkshire | Jun 17 2011, 02:20 AM Post #30 |
|
Knight
|
yes but at what point does that fetus become not a part of a woman and become a seperate sentient being. |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Jun 17 2011, 03:01 AM Post #31 |
|
Retired Knight
|
What is the point of abstinence/condoms/birth control? To not have a child. Therefore, those things are causing healthy eggs to be destroyed, killing a potential human being. Is it okay to kill ovums, but not zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, or fetuses? It's an arbitrary distinction, isn't it? |
![]() |
|
| galahad of jerusalem | Jun 17 2011, 07:53 AM Post #32 |
|
Retired Knight of the Round Table
|
Heya Kay I see what you are saying here, and as an atheist, it makes sense to you. But, our beliefs are that conception is when the personhood begins. However, I will say that, (wading into the deep end of the theological pool where i don't know how to swim) I don't think ALL conceptions lead to personhood neccesarly. I haven't thought this all the way out yet, so I may be really wrong on this, but ultimatly, it is God who gives us our souls, which is given at conception. But what if science is able to produce a conception of egg and sperm, but God had not chosen to give it a soul? Science can never thwart God's plan, it can just unwittingly go along with it. So, take invitro. for instance... You have a whole mess of these fertilized eggs (zygotes) which have all the normal properties of life, but no soul as they were not meant to go on the personhood. Now, one of em may be implanted to the womb and a person is created...up to God. But in anyrate, using a condom or birthcontrol preventing conception in the normal sense leading to a person is not abortion. It is just an egg which is flushed out of a womens body one a month :wacko: |
![]() |
|
| Pete of Yorkshire | Jun 17 2011, 11:32 AM Post #33 |
|
Knight
|
your argument has one flaw you base it on the fact that a fetues has a soul placed by god. where i can argue that it is a natural biological system to continue the speices. and the soul is just another part of the brain, complex electrical and chemical signaks. that make up or consicness. all depends on your beliefs but is it right to force your values onto other people who do not share your faith? |
![]() |
|
| Kay of Sauvage | Jun 17 2011, 05:25 PM Post #34 |
|
Retired Knight
|
So upon the moment of conception, the zygote is given a soul (unless it's in-vitro?? Does it gotta happen in missionary position too, and doggy-style fertilizations are soulless as well? :lol: ). So the presence of the soul is what makes it bad to kill it? And the lack of a soul makes it okay to let eggs go unfertilized and die, to abort animal fetuses, and kill soulless in-vitro babies and people? Can I get some detail on what exactly are the distinctions in play here that make it so this isn't the case. |
![]() |
|
| stoicblitzer | Jun 17 2011, 06:00 PM Post #35 |
![]()
Retired Knight
|
I read the topic title and saw dag's name next to it. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · The Portcullis · Next Topic » |








im only being the devils advocate.


2:36 PM Jul 11