Controversial Discussion/Debate

Re:^^^

I'm of the firm belief that you've GOT to question authority. When one does not question authority, it then has no checks and balances. Cultures, languages, and societies evolve with time. To me, that means if the society is not static, neither should the rules and norms be. Authority that does not evolve with the times then loses its' power.

To me, the highest morality is the "Golden Rule" which is to treat others how one would wish to be treated. I'm also a very strong proponent of Social Justice, and that everyone deserves respect, and a fair chance to succeed.

Unfortunately, Society has another "Golden Rule" and that's "those who have the gold, they make the rules" And that usually supersedes all, and the status quo is preserved, usually long after it's become obsolete.

I am often confliced when I head to sums spend on stars of all sort....140 miil. when at the same time I enjoy watching the things stars do.....be that sport or movies or music....
I remember a debat as to Jennifer Aniston spending money on her hair.
I agree it is her money to spend as she please.
But the sum is terrifying when we have starving people everwhere. It is by no means Jennifer A.s problem or fault ....but the way we value things in life. If I didn´t spend my money on films she made ...she would be poor.(You get my drift) But did Tom Cruise get 40 mill for deal once and the Sultan of Bruni flew in Celine Dion for a party ???Wow....

Well back to Kimbos topic...could we create new mini states where people who like tomatoo could live and places (minstates )where people belive in death penalty could live IYO? Or is our need to conque and be right too big?
 
Last edited:
I'm late in the game but here I go:

Gay Marriage: I'm all for it. I think that if two people love each other and want to be together, than who cares if they are two women or two men. Love is love. Let it be.

Death Penalty: Against it because there's always the risk that someone innocent is going to die because our justice system is flawed. No.

Questin Authority: Hell yah! Just because someone is in charge, doesn't mean they are right.
 
Well back to Kimbos topic...could we create new mini states where people who like tomatoo could live and places (minstates )where people belive in death penalty could live IYO? Or is our need to conque and be right too big?

That type of thing makes me nervous. In the United States, we have the horrible history of segregation and the "Seperate but Equal" that really was not equal in the slightest.

Also, in South Africa, during the reign of Apartheid in the 1970's and 1980's, and maybe even before, what they did was they had several "Homelands" for the blacks that were really just excuses to say that there wasn't a black majority in the Republic of South Africa.

There was also the little business of the American Civil War. Part of the whole reason for that was States Rights, and different views on things like Slavery, free trade and the like. That didn't work out too well for anyone concerned.

I think spliting up into smaller factions just based on things like ideology is not a good thing. There will always be disagreements over things like the death penalty, how to deal with poverty, terrorism, reproductive rights, immigration, drug use and other hot button issues. Besides, what's to stop these little ministates from warring with each other for supremacy.
 
That type of thing makes me nervous. In the United States, we have the horrible history of segregation and the "Seperate but Equal" that really was not equal in the slightest.

Also, in South Africa, during the reign of Apartheid in the 1970's and 1980's, and maybe even before, what they did was they had several "Homelands" for the blacks that were really just excuses to say that there wasn't a black majority in the Republic of South Africa.

There was also the little business of the American Civil War. Part of the whole reason for that was States Rights, and different views on things like Slavery, free trade and the like. That didn't work out too well for anyone concerned.

I think spliting up into smaller factions just based on things like ideology is not a good thing. There will always be disagreements over things like the death penalty, how to deal with poverty, terrorism, reproductive rights, immigration, drug use and other hot button issues. Besides, what's to stop these little ministates from warring with each other for supremacy.


Which IMO makes this "the Gothic KnoT"(?) unsolveable.....Enlightment and respect can´t do it. Enlightment = look at Thailand. There are parts of Thailand that doesn´t have a working toiletsystem and yet they bombarded with western imput all the time aka the turists. So you will have kids going to schools 4 - 8 years dependng their situation just to leave and go into the turistindustri and not as such raise the quality of living for Thai - people. So would the Thai people have been more happy living oblivious to MacDonal - Audi - toilets - dishwasher, western moral - etics and Sony or have we with education - norms and modern day comfort raise their quality of life? And solved any disagreement in differencies between opinions? Your exampel of the Civil War and modern day American is great btw.

Respect...we have circled that a couple of times- do I respect all or do I respect thoose would do/feel as I do? AND should I respect all no matter what? Look at gangs....it is a group of people what has joined up and make their own set of values and norms. Are they wrong? In our justis(?)/laws - yes they are - as to moral - Yes they are.
BUT they have make a choice and used free will.They live by a set of rules and norms they commit to when joining. Should we not respect the choice and free will? And their code of moral might be way off as "normal" people go. BUT it makes sense for them...We have throughout time teamed up .....This is just the context of the present system that defines what is ok and what is not. And enlightment might have learned us that shooting all (including civilians) just to benifit our groups as gangs do - is NO good.

So do tell ....Are we looking for solution and agreement or is that utopic?

I am ranting and looking through my post ...I need to return later and clearfy my point.

On a later return....Has enligthment(education) and respect (Politically correct behavior) improved much in our world today? Or are we to be an endless world of the same in different disguises? And as long as humans react on emtions - hate/greed/love/fear and act on rational thought what should/could change?
 
Last edited:
in essence, i agree with Shytownzombie - segregation is a bad thing - even if it's done by the choice of those segregating themselves, at worst that is also segregation, at best it's ghettoisation, neither of which are good things.

i think enlightenment can help, but only if it's done right. you used the thai example which is a strange one for me because i wouldn't class tourist industries as a force of enlightenment - it sometimes happens of course but usually the (almost always) white tourists are segregated from the non-white natives, and there is another kind of segregation. the reason tourism isn't a unifying force is that tourists tend to see natives as another quaint aspect of this quaint place they're in, especially if the natives aren't white (for instance this is much less common with tourism in europe).

but i think enlightenment can be useful - technology and philanthropy are far more important than tourism. tourism is essentially another form of colonisation, and colonisation (imho) is bad, as are imperial notions (i love being english but when i think about the british empire it makes me feel sick to think i'm a product of that history). the way to aid nations that aren't so developed to get to a better standard of living is through help as equals - sharing resources, technology, educational advances and so on. sadly in a world dominated by rampant capitalism and where the western (white) world has all the advantages, it is unlikely to happen in any of our lifetimes. hmm, see, we're back to that old inequality of capitalism chestnut!

respect: see, i can sort of understand the respect agenda (as our politicians like to call it), because i think manners are really a lot more important than people seem to think. however... with the gang thing, i don't think we can necessarily blame gangs for their self-segregation or even for their choices. i'm NOT condoning gang activity here, by the way, i think shooting and robbing people for kicks is wrong. but.... gang members are almost exclusively from poor, deprived backgrounds. according to studies (i think) the vast majority are missing a male role model from their lives and they go to gangs to find some sense of family/belonging (this was referred to in a csi:ny ep actually, tanglewood i think, where mac said he had a similar feeling as the kid but joined the marines to find the same answers).

once again this comes back to inequality and deprivation - in a way i find it even sadder than the deprivation of less developed nations: these are kids in the same damn country/system as the ones who are taking all the money and running. it's actually quite hard to interfere (at state level) with the needs of another sovereign state, so i can understand how at some level it's less easy to help nations that aren't functioning at their optimum and why this has to be done instead through aid and/or resources bargaining at commercial level. but these are kids in a society that's meant to be thriving and they just get abandoned.

first they are unlucky enough to be born into a sector of society that is all too often ignored or looked down on, and then they are given very few opportunities to break out of that, because lack of opportunity always hits the poorest/most deprived groups hardest, and on top of that there are all kinds of exclusivity barriers to the opportunities there are. and then they are blamed and punished when they screw up. it makes me f*cking sick. you say they use choice and free will, i don't buy that at all - how can they have freedom of choice when they aren't given all the options that a similar person in a less deprived sector of society would have? that's not a choice, that's settling for what you can get. this is why so much of the military is made up of people with fewer prospects - they are told they'll get pay, pension and a college education along with the sense of belonging they so badly need. it's a really underhanded recruitment method but it does seem to work: lack of opportunity = not a free choice.

On a later return....Has enligthment(education) and respect (Politically correct behavior) improved much in our world today? Or are we to be an endless world of the same in different disguises? And as long as humans react on emtions - hate/greed/love/fear and act on rational thought what should/could change?

i think enlightenment has to be a positive thing - the problem as i see it is that respect is clearly very selective. the "haves" want the "have nots" to respect them, but don't give any in return - THAT is the problem. emotions are involved but they can be a positive driving force as well as a negative, i think they aren't as relevant as they might be, but what is relevant is inequality and until the people who have everything they need and free choice and all that stuff start recognising that people who have nothing are human beings and should be entitled to the same breadth of choice and resources, nothing will ever change. i can't see anything changing, personally.

hmm i have outranted you!
 
Last edited:
well ladies...I am wondering whether or not you left. When I went back to death penalty....:guffaw::guffaw: Still would love some points as to: Can people better themselves allways? and Jeff Dahmar what end should he have had?

So I am back...

Well what sort of world do you want then?

Shytownzombie. Did you not have the point as to tread others as you do yourself....

As to abort question ....do you see that happing?
 
I'm sort of on the fence when it comes to the Death Penalty. Canada abolished the Death Penalty in 1976. There are times when I think killers like Paul Bernardo should be sentenced to death. Why should my tax dollars be used to keep him alive. He is being kept in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day. In my opinion he should be let out in the general prison population.

The times where I'm glad were don't have the death penalty is for people Donald Marshall, Guy Paul Morin, Robert Baltovich and David Milgaard. These men were all convicted of different murders but for most of them after spending years in jail they were found to have been innocent. One of the most famous Canadian cases of miscarriage of justice is Steven Truscott. He was convicted at age 14 of killing a school friend. He was sentenced to death but the sentence was commuted to life in prison. He was released from jail in 1969. Finally in 2007 the Supreme Court of Canada acquitted him of all charges. For men like these I'm glad Canada doesn't have the death penalty anymore but for killers like Bernardo it's a different story.
 
Abortion: I'm very pro-choice. Until the fetus has the brain function to think and feel pain, a woman should be able to get an abortion for any reason. Do I think it sucks that so many women feel the need to get an abortion because something happens and they don't feel equipped to be parents? Of course, it's horrible. But if you force someone to raise a child, it's not fair to that child or the woman.

Gay marriage: This should be a non-issue. Obviously, we all have different personal/religious beliefs that influence what we think about gay people, but the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State should be enough for us to realize that we can't force one view of "morality" on a country with so many different beliefs.

Disciplining children: I believe that as long as you explain to a child what they did wrong before and after you spank them, and you're not doing it harshly/every single time, it's okay. I also believe time outs can be just as effective. To me, it's mostly the parent's decision.

Immigration: The system needs to be reformed, desperately. There's no reason why someone who wants to work hard in this country should be denied citizenship, or forced to wait 18 years to have their papers approved. It's ridiculous, and if we changed it, nearly all of the immigrants coming here illegally would continue to rather than become a citizen legally. I have mucho respect for immigrants. They work their butts off, and do jobs that we don't want to do (and btw, a lot pay taxes, because they adopt fake SS numbers to get jobs, and are therefore expected to pay taxes by the gov't).

HEALTHCARE-Everyone should have it!!! No one should die because they're poor or get into a rough situation when insurance companies drop them through bs loopholes because they "cost too much". I believe it's a right, without a doubt. I could care less about the companies and their profits, quite frankly. This has always been my top priority for America.

Death penalty-I'm against it in most cases. I especially don't believe in the "eye for an eye" thing of "we should kill them the same way they killed their victims." Being for the death penalty doesn't make you as bad as them, but saying that, in my opinion, is getting pretty close.
 
Gay marriage: This should be a non-issue. Obviously, we all have different personal/religious beliefs that influence what we think about gay people, but the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State should be enough for us to realize that we can't force one view of "morality" on a country with so many different beliefs.

i completely agree - it's just a shame the separation of church and state isn't as complete in practice as it is in theory. france have the right idea on that one, i think. for the most part anyway.

I have mucho respect for immigrants. They work their butts off, and do jobs that we don't want to do (and btw, a lot pay taxes, because they adopt fake SS numbers to get jobs, and are therefore expected to pay taxes by the gov't).

i think this goes under the radar for a lot of people - one reason immigrants are so numerous in certain places is that no one else wants to do the dirty work. in western (and especially in white) societies, we've all got to a level of comfort where many people deem menial work below them and just won't do it, and the same goes for minimum wage. those who want all immigrants deported need to realise that without them nothing would get done, we are all too bourgeois now to want to clean toilets and build roads on the breadline. people should accept that either we do the work ourselves - even the horrible jobs, or we allow people who really really need the money to do them on our behalf, but either way we need to stop complaining about it! it's been that way ever since (and to a lesser extent, since before) the 19th century i guess - where would america (or britain for that matter) be without the immigrant labourers who built the rails, the roads, the docks etc?

Death penalty-I'm against it in most cases. I especially don't believe in the "eye for an eye" thing of "we should kill them the same way they killed their victims." Being for the death penalty doesn't make you as bad as them, but saying that, in my opinion, is getting pretty close.

same. for me the whole idea of a justice system is that it's about justice - retribution and justice are *not* the same thing. a civilised society should be able to mete out justice without resorting to retribution.
 
I wish I hadn't come into this thread.

But I'm already here.

Very briefly, taking legal steps to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriage, or taking legal steps to make same-sex marriage ILLEGAL, is, to me, analogous to requiring everyone (by law) to conform to Jewish dietary standards. Some people may not mind, some people may already conform to them, etc etc, but the fact remains that the entire population of a state or a country shouldn't be forced by law to adhere to the faith-based standards of someone's religion. How could I still claim to have religious freedom if the law, which is supposed to uphold only that which serves a clearly civil/secular purpose, requires me to obey religious standards I may not have consented to follow?

Every major, reputable psychological, medical and sociological organization on the planet recognizes that homosexuality is not an illness, a perversion, a maladjustment, a disease, a psychological glitch, a harmful condition, or a choice. If your religious conviction suggests otherwise, I'm certainly in no position to force you to change your mind, but I must reiterate - the fact that a certain religion doesn't approve of homosexuality doesn't mean it's appropriate to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the basis of the disapproval of said religion. The law must serve a civil/secular purpose. To siphon purely religious standards into the law is to undermine the First Amendment and the religious liberty it guarantees.
 
Gay marriage: This should be a non-issue. Obviously, we all have different personal/religious beliefs that influence what we think about gay people, but the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State should be enough for us to realize that we can't force one view of "morality" on a country with so many different beliefs.

i completely agree - it's just a shame the separation of church and state isn't as complete in practice as it is in theory. france have the right idea on that one, i think. for the most part anyway.

We have two state churches (lutheran and orthodox) meaning both churches can collect their own taxes from those who are members. It's not big % but still it goes from your paycheck if you are a member.

Anyways, here civil unions/marriages between same sex are allowed since 2002 and now there is debate among lutheran church, if they should allow these marriages. Some priest have accepted those but majority hasn't.

I just don't understand (well I do understand people have their religion and some would like to have church's blessing) but since you get most of the same rights with civil union/marriage (Except adoption, adoption inside the family [means either one is child's biological parent] was accepted last spring) why need church? Lutherans try to go with today's stuff so they wouldn't lose their members but this divdes them even worse (same with the question of female priests) and now I hate that some catholic arcbishop starts commenting on what Lutheran chuch should do (they are small church and they should stop poking their nose to Lutheran business)

But it always makes me giggle, how strongly americans feel about seperation of church and state and yet (Christian) religion has SO big affect on every law. People shouldn't be able to use religion as a reason when voting from these things.
 
Gay marriage: This should be a non-issue. Obviously, we all have different personal/religious beliefs that influence what we think about gay people, but the First Amendment and Separation of Church and State should be enough for us to realize that we can't force one view of "morality" on a country with so many different beliefs.

i completely agree - it's just a shame the separation of church and state isn't as complete in practice as it is in theory. france have the right idea on that one, i think. for the most part anyway.

We have two state churches (lutheran and orthodox) meaning both churches can collect their own taxes from those who are members. It's not big % but still it goes from your paycheck if you are a member.

the pub that wrecks your body, the church? all they want is your money... (morrissey was spot on!)

But it always makes me giggle, how strongly americans feel about seperation of church and state and yet (Christian) religion has SO big affect on every law. People shouldn't be able to use religion as a reason when voting from these things.

yeah me too - america is particularly weak on separation of church and state because so many churches are so influential and rich, and they have a massively strong jewish lobby as well (hence israel being such a huge issue). i find it interesting especially because so much of US political doctrine is essentially based in french political doctrine (which has a very clear separation, la laïcité) - although i'm sure few americans would want to admit that. in britain there's sort of separation, but since henry the 8th we're a bit stuck with it - the official title of the monarch is still "defender of the faith" which goes to show that church and state are nominally linked if nothing else - in practice the monarchy has very little power and the government are relatively free of church intervention (but not entirely). personally i'd abolish the monarchy completely, it's a total waste of time/money/space, and then totally separate church and state. it's a nice dream, but i can't see it ever happening.
 
I'm gonna resurrect this thread. This is something I'd found on the internet a few days ago. Quite frankly, whe I first read it, I hoped that it was some sort of Satire, like "The Onion" or some such, but apparently it is true.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

It's from the Huffington Post, and apparently if a woman is sexually assaulted, and reports it, then takes anti-retroviral meds to not contract HIV, she's then considered uninsurable by most, if not all health insurance companies.

Furthermore, if she reports the rape, and tries to seek counseling, oftenntimes, insurance companies won't pay for it because the treatment is not "Medically Necessary."

I'm still really appalled and offended by this, although it is some small comfort that there are a lot of other people quoted in the article that feel it's beyond wrong.

You're Collective Thoughts?
 
Shytownzombie said:
Furthermore, if she reports the rape, and tries to seek counseling, oftenntimes, insurance companies won't pay for it because the treatment is not "Medically Necessary."

I find that really disgusting.

I mean, depending on the state/country, most insurance companies cover therapy and medications for those traumatized by car accidents and many businesses offer counselling services free of charge for witnesses of suicides, robberies or hostage situations in the workplace. All of those incidents are (proven medically) traumatizing not only physically but mentally (granted, most of those are under separate automotive or workplace-related insurance companies) so I don't see why rape would be any less traumatic.

And depending where you are, even victims of violent crimes (and/or families of victims) are sometimes afforded victims' services benefits which might include counselling. There's no reason why victims of rape shouldn't be afforded the same in some manner.

Of course some people still think that if a woman (or man, depending on the situation) is raped, she was 'asking for it' in some manner which means it was 'her fault'.

I find it interesting that in the article, some companies deem the rape as part of a 'pre-existing medical condition' (PTSD) that excludes them from preventative treatment for HIV and other companies see 'HIV treatment' and assume the individual is being treated for HIV, whether they test negative or not which excludes them. That's certainly a fantastical web of ridiculousness in my eyes.

I think it's important to point out that health plans are not denying coverage based on the fact that someone was raped," said Pisano of the insurance trade group. "But PTSD could be a factor in denied coverage."

It's kind of funny to me because the PTSD probably wouldn't have been a factor had the rape not happened. :p

I do know there was a section in the article that pointed out one woman wouldn't receive coverage because she had reported being raped previously so I suppose that would fall under the heading of PTSD being a pre-existing medical condition (which by the way I still find ridiculous) but unless I'm missing something, I really hope they're not assuming PTSD is a pre-existing medical condition for someone who had only been raped the one time since the whole idea of POST traumatic stress is that it happens AFTER the incident, not before.

Unless by 'pre-existing', they mean before, after and everywhere in between. Otherwise, no one would ever be covered for anything. :p
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna resurrect this thread. This is something I'd found on the internet a few days ago. Quite frankly, whe I first read it, I hoped that it was some sort of Satire, like "The Onion" or some such, but apparently it is true.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/21/insurance-companies-rape-_n_328708.html

It's from the Huffington Post, and apparently if a woman is sexually assaulted, and reports it, then takes anti-retroviral meds to not contract HIV, she's then considered uninsurable by most, if not all health insurance companies.

Furthermore, if she reports the rape, and tries to seek counseling, oftenntimes, insurance companies won't pay for it because the treatment is not "Medically Necessary."

I'm still really appalled and offended by this, although it is some small comfort that there are a lot of other people quoted in the article that feel it's beyond wrong.

You're Collective Thoughts?

That's disgusting. It actually makes me feel sick. I don't have time to read the article right now, but I will for sure when I've got the chance.
 
Back
Top