h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm sorry Caleb, but I really must disagree with you. I find your comments on your
space very offensive.

<>

So unwanted pregnancies are entirely the woman's fault? Have you not considered
that the woman could have been pressured to have sex? Many unplanned pregnancies
happen each year because an innocent or naive woman has been forced into having
sex when they don't want to.

<>

I couldn't care less which political party you support. Without democracy, the USA
(and h2g2) wouldn't be the wonderful, varied place that it is. Also using the phrase
"liberal democratic tree hugging enviromentailists" hardly creates a convincing
argument, does it?

<>

Right, so all middle-eastern people without a social security card are terrorists are
they? The terrorist Richard Reid, who tried to blow-up and America-bound aeroplane,
had a British passport. I don't see how you can be "not personally raceist " when you
give these comments.

<>

Here you don't provide an valid argument as to why you support capital punishment;
you merely vaguely quote from The Bible. I could do exactly the same, by referring
you to MATTHEW 5, Verses 38-39 (NIV). I agree with you that the law should apply
to everyone, regardless of race or gender. However, I strongly disagree that it is
acceptable to kill people who are not in control of their own actions. What gives you
the right to decide to kill someone?

I'm willing to discuss this - that's one of the benefits of democracy. Either do it here,
or on My Space (U177704).

Here's the quote from the Bible that I mentioned in my previous post -
38. You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'
39. But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Caleb, if you want to get into a variety of conversation on political issues you might want to check out A703685. It lists numerous subjects. It's easier to have conversations when it's only one subject that's being discussed.

I don't see what is so offensive about saying that a person doesn't believe abortion is wrong and further stating that pregnant women can give up children for adoption. I think it's consistent with a person who believes that human should have rights from conception. If an embryo is a human being from conception, it is innocent of the wrong doing of its father. Of course, I disagree; I am very pro-choice.

Caleb's announcement of his political party is hardly an argument. It's a statement pure and simple. You have several statements on your site. The spelling could be significantly better.

I don't think it's inconsistent to not be a racist but recognize that some people might be more likely to commit a certain act than others. Racism is more about the belief that a person is inherently more likely to do something based on their race. It's addresses the idea of causation. Profiling, even if it's done strictly on the basis of race, is more about the correlation than causation. I have yet to make my mind up about racial profiling.

In regards to the capital punishment thing, it's a statement.

I don't see anything offensive. They're just ideas that differ from yours.

I don't deny that adoption isn't a perfectly valid alternative to abortion. I have known women who have had multiple abortions, not because they were raped/pressurised but because they simply can't be bothered to use contraception. I am often appalled by the way that abortion is 'abused'. While I would agree that "an embryo is a human being from conception, it is innocent of the wrong doing of its father" the woman that is being forced to have this baby, which she doesn't want, is often innocent too. Having a child adopted isn't as simple as 'giving it away'.

The main part of the 'ABORTION' section that offended me was the part where Caleb said "keep her legs closed next time". This kind of misogyny does offend me, and i'm sure it will offend many other people on this site.

Caleb is free to support any political party that he likes, and i do not treat this as an arguement. However, his calling all that have a different political view to his "liberal democratic tree hugging enviromentailists" hardly earns him my respect. The point that i was trying, with limited success , to convey was that he derrogatively groups democracy in with "liberal...tree hugging enviromentailists" shows his lack of understanding for the wonderful thing that is democracy.

I found the statement about Capital punishment particularly offensive because Caleb says "you should be killed reguardless of race gender or mental skills". I do not believe that people who have mental conditions which effect their judgement, and their ability to know the difference between right and wrong etc. should be executed. We don't execute children, and I believe that we shouldn't execute those who are mentally ill. I know it's just Caleb's opinion, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't provoke a reaction in me.

My main concerns about racial profiling are -
a) it stigmatises those that are profile (eg. muslims/those from the middle east.
b)It would turn into a 'witch-hunt' similar to the McCarthyism of the cold war era.

As for not seeing anything offensive, you did not see the article entitled 'homosexuality & christianity' which was in peer review this morning (when i first posted). Believe me (or ask Jimster) its homophobic (an issue which i feel strongly about) content was very offensive. It has since been removed from the guide because of this.

I missed the leg crossing bit when I read it the first thing. Although, it's a little crude, it's an effective method of birth control. I prefer something a little less drastic like the pill.

I reject the notion that the unborn are human beings.

There are a lot of researchers who are hypersensitive. They want to wrap themselves in a blanket of political correctness. I find that more offensive than Caleb's unpolished opinions and expression.

His reference to liberals is far less mean spirited than many of the expressions of vitriol that I've seen expressed towards conservatives, traditions (like the monarchy), and President Bush.

I found his views towards capital punishment to be the most innocuous of anything that I saw. He was expressing the opinion that it should be applied equally regardless of race, gender or mental condition. He didn't say anything about age. I agree with him completely about race and gender. If a person genuinely can't tell the difference between right and wrong because of mental disease or defect they should be confined for life, rather than executed. On the other hand, if they're that defective, they're not really human are they?

I haven't formed a real opinion on racial profiling yet. If it's effective, then I have a problem rejecting it out of hand, although it offends some of my sensitivity in that it may violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I think there are more effective ways to profile people than on a purely racial basis.

I didn't see the Homosexuality and Christianity bit. It was because of that entry that I came here to learn more about him.

Caleb is 16. I suspect he is here for many of the same reasons that I'm here. He's here to explore and express ideas. I don't think it does the community any good to cut him off at the knees from the get go.

Perhaps I was a bit too harsh on you, Caleb, and for that I am sorry. It probably was wrong of me to cut you "off at the knees from the get go". Do carry on posting, because although I will probably disagree with you, I value your contribution

As I said in Post 1, I agree with you (and Two Bit) that the law should apply to everyone regardless of race or gender; that's justice. I would also agree with Two Bit when he said "If a person genuinely can't tell the difference between right and wrong because of mental disease or defect they should be confined for life, rather than executed." It's my opinion that they should only be released when they cease to be a danger to society. If this means life imprisonment, then i guess that is what should be done.

Oops, should have been more careful quoting you there, Two Bit (it was getting late). I wouldn't say that an unborn baby is a human being, but I would certainly say that it is a life, which should be treated with care and respect. I am very pro-choice, but am shocked by the way that some people use abortion as 'just another form of contraception'. This degrades abortion, and hardly furthers the pro-lifers' argument.

I'm not at all offend by the phrase "liberal democratic tree hugging enviromentailists", in fact i find it very humourous . I'm just advising Caleb to use some caution when using the word 'democratic' in this context. Caleb says that he is a Republican; the Republican party were democratically elected to power, weren't they?

If a person can be so unbalanced that they can be declared not guilty by reason of insanity, then I don't think we should ever trust them to be released again. A person who can't accountable for their actions isn't really a person.

Abortion can be touchy. I don't really have a probelm with it being last resort form of birth control. I find the procedure distasteful. OTOH, I do view it as a very legitmate tool for culling out defective embryos. If my wife were to become pregnant, and the child was shown to be defective prior to birth, it would be aborted.

As for the election of republicans, some of our elections are only vaguely democratic. Obviously the will of the people is filtered through the electors.

I would agree with you in saying that abortion is "a very legitmate tool for culling out defective embryos". While I am not denying that a disabled person cannot lead a happy, fulfilling life the huge pressures that a severly disabled child might place on the parents are (in my opinion) an 'acceptable' reason for having an abortion. I have never fathered a child, or got a woman pregnant, but am fairly sure that i would support my partner in taking such a decision.

While I recognise as a valuable preventor of unwanted births, the attitude of 'let's not bother with a condom, you can just get an abortion' often angers me. It wastes valuable public money, hospital space and doctors' time (believe me, here in the UK the NHS needs as much money/doctors/space as it can get).

The subject of 'insanity and the law' is a very complex one. I'm not a psychologis/psychiatrist and know of only a handful of actual cases. Therefore, I am still undecided as to whether the insane can ever/should be trusted to be released.

Without wishing re-ignite the whole Bush/Gore debate, the Republican government was freely elected by an un-prejudiced (ie. all adults eligble to vote) electorate. While the election process isn't strictly democratic, i think in the context of my (and Caleb's) argument it constitutes a democracy.

i'd have to say that i strongly disagree with your comments about abortion being a way to cull off defective embryos or a type of bith control. i have a cousin who has downs syndrom my aunt knew that she had it when she was still in the womb. she was given the option of abortion. she chose to have the child. i love this girl as much as if she was my own sister. i would do anything for her yet you say that she was defective so she should have been aborted? once again correct me if i am misunderstanding you.

another thing you said is that if the child is still in the womb then it is lifeless right? i strongly beleive that the moment that the sperm enters the egg there is life there.


as far as the captial punishment to mentally handicaped persons, the theroy of incarseration until they can be decleared safe to be realeased is a good one. but i still find one problem with this idea...there are con artists out there who can make not only a jury of 12 people but 50 million people beleive that they are mentally incapasitated. these people would use this loophole to do or kill whatever or whoever they want.

one last thing before i close, i need to clear myself when i said that the woman should learn to keep her legs shut. this sounds like i'm implying that the woman is totally to blame. i did not mean to make this point. i d beleive that it takes two to tango. i know that some women are pressured or raped. my mothers aunt was raped when she was young. if she would have had an abortion (wich she was offered) i wouldn't have had the pleasure of knowing my older cousin. as far as pressure goes, it hapenes also but the woman has more control in this sinero,she has the power to stop it. in short i don't think there is any reason for abortion. well there is only one case that abortion could be an option. this is when you know FOR SURE tha the birth would kill both mother AND child and the abortion will FOR SURE save the mothers life.



once again please correct me if i'm misunderstanding you.
caleb16

the preivous comments made about "liberal democratic enviromoenlists" was simply in jokeing but finding that it has offended some people i have decited to remove it from my personal space.

It's great to see you back. I was concerned that you had been run off.

On abortion, you read my comments correctly. My wife and I have a very clear understanding. She will abort if there are any serious detectible defects before birth or we'll divorce.

It may be life, but I don't consider it a human being that has any particlualr right to exist.

I admire your position on abortion. Those that think that abortion is worng except in cases of rape or incest don't get a lick of respect from me. If you think it's a baby, then it's a person with rights who is innocent of the crimes of its father.

One quick question, how do you resove saying, "sex: yes please (in case you can't tell i'm a male)," and "keep her legs closed next time." That seems to be contradictory.

i have learned that some of my coments in my article "homosexuality & christianity" were found offencive and homophobic by some people.


this posting is for those who were offended........


i wrote this article to show that not everybody thinks its alright to be a gay or a leabian but i understood when i registered that this was a place where one could express their oponion. i admit that i used some somewhat overberring and offencive language but i shall not aoplogize for offending you. you brought it opon yourself when chose the lifestyle that you chose. you should have known that this lifestyle will bring you ridicule.

Caleb,
It's nice to see you trying to present a more coherant arguement, people will respect you more if you do While I don't totally agree with your last post, i don't find it offensive. Unlike 'homosexuality & christianity' you've tried to create a balanced argument, rather than just spewing incoherant vitriol (which many researchers would find extremely offensive). Also, thanks for contributing to this discussion.

It's getting late here in the UK, so i'll try to post a follow-up to your posting tomorrow.

I'd post that over in the Peer Review thread. I doubt that many people took the time to come over here.

Caleb,
I posted my last message (post 14) because i was pleased to see that you'd read this thread, and taken note of the way in which Two Bit and I had discussed it.

Then I read your ending comments in post 13, and was saddened. Caleb, I honestly though that you were prepared to join in the debate properly; but now it looks like I was wrong. Saying "you should have known that this lifestyle will bring you ridicule" hardly justifies your arguement, does it? If I were to ridicule you, would you change your ways?

Hi folks. I'm a friend of Caleb's and a Christian for starters. My views on homosexuality are based on my faith. I think homosexuality causes a lot of emotional problems for those who participate in it, and studies have shown that they live much shorter, disease-ridden lives. (The average homosexual lives 39 years) Moreover, I think it's a sin, rooted in contempt for the opposite sex. I say this not in ignorance; I do personally know homosexuals. So far, I have agreed with Caleb, but I'm about to differ slightly. The sin of homosexuals is no different than my sin or your sin or Caleb's sin. We all have evil in us. Therefore, I think our reactions to homosexuals should be no different than our reaction to any other non-Christian. We Christians are to love these people with the love of Christ; we are to help them overcome their problems; and we are to respect their freedom to decide for themselves the kind of life they want to live.

I welcome comments

<>

But these emotional problems are cause by intolerant homophobes, aren't they? This kind of blanket statement is also probably untrue for most homosexuals, who lead happy, loving lives (certainly happier than those who are forced to spend their whole lives under the pretence of being 'straight').

<>

This is not a valid argument against homosexuality. This isn't the 1980s, and homosexuality is today an awful lot safer. I doubt the accuracy/reliability of your results. Also, there are currently more HIV positive heterosexuals than homosexuals. Even if homosexuality was dangerous (which it isn't) this still doesn't make it wrong.

<>

So all heterosexuals have a contempt for members of their own sex, do they? Well I always thought that your friend Caleb was male.

<>

Even if they're gay, middle eastern, female or non-christian? No offense, but your comments on homosexuals hardly seem respectful.

If you read in Leviticus, it specifically states in two places that it's wrong for a man to lie with another man. Then again, Leviticus also specifically states that it's wrong to wear clothing made from two types of cloth. So, do Caleb & Josh own any poly-cotton undies or nylon jackets with wool lining? Just as much a sin as being homosexual, apparently.

Comments?

not trying to destroy this discussion's objectivity, but this is a very interesting link -

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com