LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRight, I'm moving this debate [the last few posts, esp. page 2] onto here. Let's keep the other one for electoral issues.
Right, I'm moving this debate [the last few posts, esp. page 2] onto here. Let's keep the other one for electoral issues.
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
Who defines whats in the social intrest?
What when the "Church" comes out with a position?Originally Posted by Gladstone
Is it just the Archbishop talking? Is it the Pope? Is it the majority of his flock?
A society can speak.
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
I thought this was about posters individual interests, which would've been mildly interesting.
Just 1 gram of cocaine destroys 4m2 of tropical rainforest. Give it up ya selfish b'stards.
When a Church comes out with a position it's the churches position and people are free to agree or disagree.
What pisses me off is talk of "kids today" (every generation says this) and "society is going to hell" (vauge and undefined critique) and "that shoudln't be allowd (refering to peoples personal behaviour that does not harm anyone)
I think we need to think of specific examples here.
We already know most peoples intreste here, yours for example...
1. Throwing stuff.
2. Burning stuff
3. hating stuff
4. Worshiping symbols and flags
5. intransigence.
How's about the one from the previous forum?
Should a man be allowed to send his six-year-old son to school in a dress because he always wanted a daughter?
He's the gaurdian, and the boy in the dress is not harming anyone. Let's say the boy isn't too bothered, sure his father has been dressing him up like this since he can remember.
Should society step in to impose a degree of what is to it perceived normality?
I for one think Yes, most definitely.
We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the internet, we know this is not true.
And I would say absolutely not.
Thats an odd one alright.
But I think society always has an intrest in being protective of kids as they are not yet capable of making their own decisions.
Tho to what degree we should interfere with parents rights it would usually be in cases that constitutie harm.
I think in this case we'd be more than warrented as it could result in harm.
Well the boy will most likely get abuse and much worst treatment from his pears because he is wearing a dress, if not at six then later on if he does not change this. This will have a negative impact on the child so I would say no. A child at that age is incapable of making a decision in his best interests and in this case the father seems to be incapable of making an intelligence decision in the child’s best interest.How's about the one from the previous forum?
Should a man be allowed to send his six-year-old son to school in a dress because he always wanted a daughter?
He's the gaurdian, and the boy in the dress is not harming anyone. Let's say the boy isn't too bothered, sure his father has been dressing him up like this since he can remember.
Should society step in to impose a degree of what is to it perceived normality?
I for one think Yes, most definitely.
"Give us the future, we've had enough of YOUR past, Give us back our country, to live in, to grow in and to love..."
Reply With Quote