Slaiv Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 .....like Amsterdam. You're an atheist, right Peregrine? If so, I can see your arguments that "morals" are pointless. As a very religious person, I hold my morals, but hey - to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 .....like Amsterdam. You're an atheist, right Peregrine? If so, I can see your arguments that "morals" are pointless. As a very religious person, I hold my morals, but hey - to each his own. No, morals aren't pointless. Nobody is forcing you to do any of these things if they are made legal. You can live by your morals and avoid both (I probably would as well, because they aren't appealing to me), and I have no problem with that. What I object very strongly to is people deciding that everyone else has to live by their moral standards. "To each his own" is a concept that far too many people in this country don't understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 Sorry for my carelessness - the only thing keeping me running right now is the fact that there is more caffeine running through my body than blood. So, naturally, I'm not very on-the-ball right now. I'll agree - imposing your morals on someone else is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 I find it irritating that people who are athiests are automatically assumed to not have morals or to be morally bankrupt in some way. That's simply not true, it's just that athiests have a different set of morals than others. I don't think peregrine would advocate everyone stripping down naked and bashing eachother's heads in with big sticks (I know that is going to get some joke responses but bear with me) because I don't see him as being THAT out there. But on the other hand, he may not agree that Marriage is between a man and a woman only because his morals are different. My final thoughts on the election's candidates are thus: Kerry has yet to prove himself as either a great evil or a great good to our country. His opinions, to me at least, are very much in accordance to my own beliefs and I have never seen him do any flip-flopping that couldn't be explained. So for Kerry, we just don't know if he'll be good for this country or not. Bush, on the other hand, has proven to me time and time again that he is not only bad for this country but that he is systematically and intentionally ripping apart the very fabric of this country's essence. He's lied about almost every action he's taken in forign policy, he only sees things in black and white terms (and kerry obviously doesn't or else people would not be accusing him of flip flopping) he's destroyed the environment, his administration is sleazy and manipulative and he is playing the public like a fiddle. To me the choices are: vote for Kerry who might be bad for the country, or vote for Bush who is bad for the country. In this case you should vote for the devil you don't know because the devil you do know is pretty damn bad and I don't see how Kerry could do worse. Voting for Nader or a 3rd party candidate is, sadly, a vote for Bush and that's just the way it is even if you try to deny it. You're stuck with either Kerry or Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyjet3 Posted November 1, 2004 Author Share Posted November 1, 2004 I agree with Surian a lot here... I am not religious at all but I believe I have very good morals. I am 19 and I have never done anything immoral. That is actually one reason why I respect christianity, it teaches very good morals. But not many christians follow them anyway... It's pretty sad that I have better morals than some christians. I also agree with his statement on the canidates... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaiv Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 As I have mentioned, I'm sorry for my assumptions - I explained it earlier. I was tired, wasted, all of the above, etc..... As for me - I just don't like Kerry. It's as simple as that. EDIT: 1200 posts..... I'm catching up to you, Suze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 But do you like Bush more? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted November 1, 2004 Share Posted November 1, 2004 As I'm not actually a US citizen, I'll actually refrain from voting, but, if I did, it would be for Kerry. Why? Not particularly because I think he would make a better president (though the guy does seem far more intelligent, so I wouldn't be surprised if he could do a better job), but simply because Bush led the US into a war that is and was completely illegal and based on reasons that were completely false. This has been confirmed over and over, most notably by the report by the Iraq Survey Group which said that, far from Saddam Hussein being a real and growing threat, as Bush claimed, he had dismantled his weapons programmes and the 'threat' posed by him was declining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surian Posted November 2, 2004 Share Posted November 2, 2004 Unfortunately many people still believe in this country that there are WMDs in Iraq waiting to be found... The only thing we've found in Iraq thus far is an old chemical weapon that was long-since deactivated and litterally had "USA" printed on the side of it because it was one of the weapons that we gave them to fight Iran with (and which Saddam used against his own people). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.