Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forward!
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
geldedgoat



Joined: 05 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
He's wrong about both. Both are part of the natural law, and consequently you can find any number of committed atheists and materialists on the Right opposing unnatural unions and infanticide.


No. "All life is sacred, and life begins at conception" is already essentially a secular position, maybe needing to replace sacred with something like precious. "Homosexuality is bad because the Bible says so" isn't so easily reworded, and all those poorly formed arguments about the natural order are weak afterthoughts, justifications.

sirius black wrote:
As for abortion, the fundamentalists believe life starts at conception and medical science does not support that view.


Science tells us particular qualities of different cells but not how to interpret those qualities.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wishfullthinkng wrote:
Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
Kuros wrote:
wishfullthinkng wrote:
you will probably take the argument that human life is more important than all other life, which a person who seems to be as small minded as yourself probably would.


Human life is more important than all other life (that we know of).


and this fallacious thinking is why people destroy the world and its inhabitants with as much aplomb as they currently do.


There's a burning building. There's a dog barking for help out of one window in the building. From another window, a human being cries for help. Who do you go save first?


which one is physically closest to me? do i know the person (aka, have an emotional stake)? do i know the dog? can i even save one of them without putting myself at risk?


One is a human, one is a dog. In all other respects they are identical. This isn't meant to be a trick question.

Quote:
there are many people that i'd rescue a dog over, and these are even people i know (aka, have an emotional stake in).


You'd rescue a dog over someone you know?

You suck at life, dude.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
GF



Joined: 26 Sep 2012

PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

geldedgoat wrote:
GF wrote:
He's wrong about both. Both are part of the natural law, and consequently you can find any number of committed atheists and materialists on the Right opposing unnatural unions and infanticide.


No. "All life is sacred, and life begins at conception" is already essentially a secular position, maybe needing to replace sacred with something like precious. "Homosexuality is bad because the Bible says so" isn't so easily reworded, and all those poorly formed arguments about the natural order are weak afterthoughts, justifications.


Not sure what you're saying. Could you expand ?

Geldedgoad wrote:
sirius black wrote:
As for abortion, the fundamentalists believe life starts at conception and medical science does not support that view.


Science tells us particular qualities of different cells but not how to interpret those qualities.


This is true. I don't think it is difficult to interpret, however. A small dose of common sense should be sufficient. He says that human life doesn't start at conception - well, what kind of life is it then ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rollo



Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 7:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I 'm not really sure how going to Cuba and giving money to a non elected dictatorship really helps change a foreign policy perspective. But at this time you can go to Cuba as a tourist. its a little messy but it is done. I mean most tourism is by men who go there for the sex trade and the very young prostitutes. Yowza!!

What infrastructure in Chicago is crumbling? curious i am.

Hi speed rail was a lot easier in China. they had no vested interests like airlines, interstates to think about. Most rural people dont own cars in China Automobile industry is important in the U.S. hi-speed rail less cars sold. Many factors but there are fast trains in the Eastern Washington to new York corridor.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rollo wrote:
I 'm not really sure how going to Cuba and giving money to a non elected dictatorship really helps change a foreign policy perspective. But at this time you can go to Cuba as a tourist. its a little messy but it is done. I mean most tourism is by men who go there for the sex trade and the very young prostitutes. Yowza!!

What infrastructure in Chicago is crumbling? curious i am.

Hi speed rail was a lot easier in China. they had no vested interests like airlines, interstates to think about. Most rural people dont own cars in China Automobile industry is important in the U.S. hi-speed rail less cars sold. Many factors but there are fast trains in the Eastern Washington to new York corridor.


The basis for our foreign policy towards Cuba are the votes of Cuban-Americans primarily in Florida. THAT is the issue. We are NOT looking at Cuba objectively. It may or may not be a good thing to keep the present status (and that is debatable) but you do NOT base foreign policy on votes. You base it on pragmatism, reason, etc.

One simply can't go to Cuba as a tourist as easily as say going to Jamaica, its close neighbors. You can't see the difference in ease? Furthermore going there puts you on all kinds of government watchlists.

Its quite possible we could have ended the dictatorship through opening up trade and tourism or at least made it far less onerous. We also could have opened up a willing and huge market very close to our shores.

http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1097.html#entry_requirements
The regulations require that persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction be licensed in order to engage in any travel-related transactions pursuant to travel to, from, and within Cuba. Transactions related to travel for tourist activities are not licensable. This restriction also prohibits tourist travel to Cuba from or through a third country such as Mexico or Canada. U.S. law enforcement authorities enforce these regulations at U.S. airports and pre-clearance facilities in third countries. Travelers who fail to comply with Department of the Treasury regulations could face civil penalties and criminal prosecution upon return to the United States.

http://www6.miami.edu/eucenter/Tzivelisfinal.pdf
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Cuban government was in strong need of foreign aid
and implemented certain reforms that would facilitate foreign investment in the island.
EU Member States seized the opportunity to invest in the only territory in the world that is free of competition from US companies and in only a few years the EU became Cuba’s most important trade and investment partner


Not only Chicago's infrastructure but pretty much EVERY major city and as well as many other areas are in very, very bad shape. The mayor couldn't convince the people to invest so much money if it weren't so. Find me any substantive proof Chicago's and even America's infrastructure isn't in dire need?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/rahm-emanuel-chicago-plan-infrastructure_n_1696457.html
the Chicago Infrastructure Trust for "looking outside the box" for ways to finance transportation improvements. The trust, passed in April by the Chicago City Council, seeks to secure $1.7 billion from private investors to modernize what Mayor Rahm Emanuel has deemed the city's "crumbling infrastructure."
http://www.economist.com/node/21554579
FOR decades America has underinvested in infrastructure—even though poor roads, delayed flights, crumbling bridges and inefficient buildings are an expensive burden. Deficiencies in roads, bridges and transport systems alone cost households and businesses nearly $130 billion in 2010, mostly because of higher running costs and travel delays. The calculated underinvestment in transport infrastructure alone runs to about $94 billion a year.

As for your China analogy, you've made my point. America's infrastructure is NOT based on need but by other industries stopping it for their own vested, self interest. Its the government's job to do what's best for the nation NOT for an industry.

Many decades ago, rail was king. Eisenhower's interstate system, killed off rail travel which was the standard mode of travel across the country, interstate, etc.
The airline industry further killed it with the advent of Pan Am, TWA and other airlines. Everyone traveled by rail. Baseball teams for example, now all pro teams travel by jet. A Chicago team playing at New York in the '30s traveled there by rail.
We have always evolved in transportation and infrastructure and each time it created more jobs and opened up new industries and businesses. We went from horse back to rail to cars and planes. Rail is still around. In the late 1800s rail road stocks were the dominant stocks on Wall Street.
Did the nation go bankrupt or end financially when that changed? No, it exapanded and got richer.


Last edited by sirius black on Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:17 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Iowa caucus voters could give a rats azz if Obama was Harvard Law review. Its about his politics.


True, but nothing about that sentence confirms the statement that "Obama came out of nowhere".

Iowa caucus voters could give a rodent's behind if George W. Bush went to Yale, but I don't think anyone is saying he came from nowhere.



It's generally accepted by any reputable political pundit or political scientist that Obama's initial 2008 campaign was a grassroots one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3563300/Barack-Obamas-grassroots-campaign-was-unprecedented.html
Barack Obama's grassroots campaign was unprecedented

Please find me evidence other than opinion that the general consensus is that it wasn't.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Mon Nov 19, 2012 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GF wrote:
sirius black wrote:
My point was that the religious rights opposition was based on religious reasons.


Not exactly. Their opposition is based on natural law, even if they themselves don’t realize it. Natural law refers to moral truths apparent to human reason, and is distinguishable from divine law, which is mysterious and hidden from reason. Only the latter can properly be called religious.



Let me once and for all clarify my point.

ALL western medical boards and their doctors will NOT abort a healthy baby in the 7th month of pregnancy for example unless there are extraordinary circumstances such as the life of the mother. They deem that fetus a human being.

However, those same medical boards and doctors will abort a pregnancy in the first month because they do not deem it a human life medically but a clump of cells.

The fundamental right specifically views that as life just as much as its life at 7 months. They base this on biblical doctrine NOT natural law or medical science's opinion. They are religious and their religion is the ONLY standard. NOT natural law. That is rediculous.

That is my point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Iowa caucus voters could give a rats azz if Obama was Harvard Law review. Its about his politics.


True, but nothing about that sentence confirms the statement that "Obama came out of nowhere".

Iowa caucus voters could give a rodent's behind if George W. Bush went to Yale, but I don't think anyone is saying he came from nowhere.



It's generally accepted by any reputable political pundit or political scientist that Obama's initial 2008 campaign was a grassroots one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3563300/Barack-Obamas-grassroots-campaign-was-unprecedented.html
Barack Obama's grassroots campaign was unprecedented

Please find me evidence other than opinion that the general consensus is that it wasn't.


Just because it was "grassroots" doesn't mean he came out of nowhere. Howard Dean's campaign was "grassroots". Ron Paul's largely has been. That doesn't mean they came out of nowhere.

Seriously, how is Harvard Law School out of nowhere? He only came out of nowhere to people who aren't political wonks.

Again, its like saying Jeremy Lin came out of nowhere. Yes, out of nowhere to the average American, but people who are hardcore basketball fans knew about him. Anyone who gets a draft day blurb from John Hollinger is not a player who came "out of nowhere". Same with Obama. Political wonks and the like had heard about him and his name was getting around circles.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden "came from nowhere" as well?

Out of nowhere would be some guy with a degree from DeVry, no previous political experience, and currently a burger flipper, becoming President.

Just because you hadn't heard of him, doesn't mean he came from outta nowhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
sirius black wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Iowa caucus voters could give a rats azz if Obama was Harvard Law review. Its about his politics.


True, but nothing about that sentence confirms the statement that "Obama came out of nowhere".

Iowa caucus voters could give a rodent's behind if George W. Bush went to Yale, but I don't think anyone is saying he came from nowhere.



It's generally accepted by any reputable political pundit or political scientist that Obama's initial 2008 campaign was a grassroots one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3563300/Barack-Obamas-grassroots-campaign-was-unprecedented.html
Barack Obama's grassroots campaign was unprecedented

Please find me evidence other than opinion that the general consensus is that it wasn't.


Just because it was "grassroots" doesn't mean he came out of nowhere. Howard Dean's campaign was "grassroots". Ron Paul's largely has been. That doesn't mean they came out of nowhere.

Seriously, how is Harvard Law School out of nowhere? He only came out of nowhere to people who aren't political wonks.

Again, its like saying Jeremy Lin came out of nowhere. Yes, out of nowhere to the average American, but people who are hardcore basketball fans knew about him. Anyone who gets a draft day blurb from John Hollinger is not a player who came "out of nowhere". Same with Obama. Political wonks and the like had heard about him and his name was getting around circles.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden "came from nowhere" as well?

Out of nowhere would be some guy with a degree from DeVry, no previous political experience, and currently a burger flipper, becoming President.

Just because you hadn't heard of him, doesn't mean he came from outta nowhere.


lol....reaad your response. You're splitting and re-splitting hairs and being obtuse, to make a point.
I'm done. Anyone reading this will see that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
lol....reaad your response. You're splitting and re-splitting hairs and being obtuse, to make a point.
I'm done. Anyone reading this will see that.

I actually think Steelrails has carried the point here...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Tue Nov 20, 2012 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sirius black wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
sirius black wrote:
Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
Iowa caucus voters could give a rats azz if Obama was Harvard Law review. Its about his politics.


True, but nothing about that sentence confirms the statement that "Obama came out of nowhere".

Iowa caucus voters could give a rodent's behind if George W. Bush went to Yale, but I don't think anyone is saying he came from nowhere.



It's generally accepted by any reputable political pundit or political scientist that Obama's initial 2008 campaign was a grassroots one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3563300/Barack-Obamas-grassroots-campaign-was-unprecedented.html
Barack Obama's grassroots campaign was unprecedented

Please find me evidence other than opinion that the general consensus is that it wasn't.


Just because it was "grassroots" doesn't mean he came out of nowhere. Howard Dean's campaign was "grassroots". Ron Paul's largely has been. That doesn't mean they came out of nowhere.

Seriously, how is Harvard Law School out of nowhere? He only came out of nowhere to people who aren't political wonks.

Again, its like saying Jeremy Lin came out of nowhere. Yes, out of nowhere to the average American, but people who are hardcore basketball fans knew about him. Anyone who gets a draft day blurb from John Hollinger is not a player who came "out of nowhere". Same with Obama. Political wonks and the like had heard about him and his name was getting around circles.

Do you think Osama Bin Laden "came from nowhere" as well?

Out of nowhere would be some guy with a degree from DeVry, no previous political experience, and currently a burger flipper, becoming President.

Just because you hadn't heard of him, doesn't mean he came from outta nowhere.


lol....reaad your response. You're splitting and re-splitting hairs and being obtuse, to make a point.
I'm done. Anyone reading this will see that.


Anyone with a brain will realize that Harvard Law Review leading to the Illinois State Senate to the US Senate is not "outta nowhere".

Anyone with a brain will realize you're saying he came out of nowhere because he came out of nowhere to you. Not because he actually came out of nowhere.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
sirius black wrote:
lol....reaad your response. You're splitting and re-splitting hairs and being obtuse, to make a point.
I'm done. Anyone reading this will see that.

I actually think Steelrails has carried the point here...


http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/228506/how-hope-and-change-became-fear-and-inertia
The vaunted Obama campaign organization that put together a miracle win in the 2008 Democratic primaries and then easily beat the Republican nominee has stumbled out of the gate...
In 2008, Obama came almost out of nowhere to overturn the established order — first in the Democratic primary,

http://tickboxconsulting.com/socialmedia/692/social-media-obama/
In 2008, Barack Obama came from nowhere and the Obama campaign was more a crusade than a traditional presidential campaign.

http://beforeitsnews.com/election-2012/2012/10/the-president-who-is-this-man-2445648.html
During the during the 2008 campaign for president that Obama came out of nowhere and surged to the top of the poles promising change.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^ You think tossing up a few online rags to click on is in any way convincing? As if I would even take my time to click them. Go ahead and show us where anything in the above specifically refutes what steelrails was saying, beyond the hollow and superficial opinion-based quotes you highlighted.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sirius black



Joined: 04 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 12:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Its over visit.org, you're embarrassing yourself now. I think steelrails originally didn't know that Obama's initial campaign was a political longshot. Got proven otherwise and has moved the goal to burger flipper.

You on the other hand seem a political junkie and have supported Steelrails out of some personal animus from what I can tell from another thread. I KNOW you knew better but took a position you knew to be false.

Steelrails saying a Devry, burger flipper is a long shot and not Obama is straw grasping moment. ALL OF US KNOW that's not a definition politically of out of nowhere and it wasn't the point I made originally.

We have all been wrong. You, me, Steelrails, everyone. The respectful thing to do was to either concede or don't respond. Both of you have made good, salient posts on a variety of things on here. It doesn't change that.

EVERYONE knows you have it wrong. A few links...lol...I've provided proof, the accepted way on this forum, actual links, and you offer statements with no basis from anyone.

Lets move on, its silly now. Okay? The point has more than been made. Do the right thing and let it rest. For the rest of the forum if not for yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Thu Nov 22, 2012 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually the only one who has been wrong here is you. You are of course free to walk away without saying another word, but please spare me the above (as if I'm going to play by your silly rules).

Obama was far from a political long shot. If he had been, he never would have been elected. The fact of the matter is that he (a Harvard lawyer with many connections) was vetted by the establishment and ridiculously hyped up in the media. Mostly he was in the right place at the right time and fit the bill. But if the establishment hadn't wanted him to succeed then he never would have. To say he came out of nowhere suggest that he could have succeeded on his own. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International