Could the US become a theocracy ?

This kind of argument reminds me of a discussion I sometimes have with my mate, down the pub (yep, our night's out are that wild!!) . He argues that the left-wing has no answer to the problem of immigration and asylum seekers, whereas I tend to say that it does have one, it's just not as quick and easy to articulate as the right-wing 'solution'. By the time someone has said "Well, one the most important things to do is to tackle the international causes and to ensure that a proper system to cope with genuine economic migrants is in place...", someone else has shouted "CHUCK 'EM OUT! KEEP 'EM OUT".It's the same problem with 'moral', with-us-or-against-us politics. It may be quick and easy to ban things because you think they are morally wrong; and it may prevent children from getting addicted to drinking and gambling, but it tramples over other people's rights.Wouldn't it be better to introduce legislation which regulates these new, tempting activities in a tight (but fair manner, increase funding to inform people about the risks, and actively help parents educate their children. It will have the effect your like-minded 'moral' families are looking for, but still allow adults to sit in a pub and drunkenly discuss politics...... it's just not that easy to chant!This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-13-2004 06:31 AM

I get this idea, and I am not saying you are wrong for doing so, or that it is not a legitimate question. My problem is that you said the question is whose do we impose. I don't believe that is as important.I think it works as a nice reductio to help explain why we answer the most important question with an emphatic NO, but that still leaves it a part of answering the first and most important question. It is not a stand alone type thing.Hope that makes more sense.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, I guess I'm a moron. I'll continue to try to understand what you are saying, though.

I didn't say you were a moron, I said you were inaccurate.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Haha. No, I didn't say you said I was a moron. I said I was a moron because I honestly don't understand what you are saying. It's probably because of my fatique from (1)writing a paper, (2)spending too much time with someone special, (3) writing more paper, (4) writing a computer program, (5) again spending too much time with someone special, (6) yet more paper to write, and (7) sleep deprivation.

You could economize by sleeping with the special person. That way, you would spend time with this person, yet you would get rid of the sleep deprivation. You could also alter the purpose of the program you're writing: make it produce lots of written stuff and your paper writing fatique will soon vanish. That leaves you with enough time on your hands to pester the inhabitants of this forum.

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.

1) yes, it was a joke. Didn't you see my "(pouts sullenly)" comment?2) Do you think that smoking should be allowed in office buildings where non-smokers must work alongside smokers?Remember, I said I was talking about the workplace.

Yeah I saw the comment, but that doesn't necessarily make the previous sentence something you don't think is true. But I get it. As phrased this is something of a stock dilemma.If the idea is smokers being allowed to smoke within the same business building, and rooms as nonsmokers, the short answer would be yes, but then it sounds like there are no exceptions. The long answer is a bit too long for this thread (where we were already warned). Suffice it to say that there are differences between types of office buildings and the people who own and operate them, and there is a difference in environmental conditions within rooms of a building. One thing you will note about studies on ETS, they have very little to say on the effects of smoking in a business office.If the idea is that nonsmokers should be forced to work in a business office, with little ventilation, right next to chainsmoking employees, the short answer is no.Personally I hate cigarette smoke, and I do think offices should be conducive to comfort of employees. Regardless of health risk, smoke is pretty undeniably an irritant. Employers should keep that in mind. Not sure I'd make that a law though.By the way, what's with the new avatar? I liked you on the horse.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I will not continue off topic with the smoke stuff (thanks for your reply anyway), but I will answer your question about my avatar.I have recently been introduced to the short-lived but fantastic TV series "Firefly". I am a huge fan of Joss Whedon's work (he created, directed, and wrote most of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel"), and my new avatar is a picture of the "firefly"-class spaceship that the characters of this show travel in. There is a feature film (Whedon's first) with all the same characters and set in the same world scheduled to come out in April of next year called "Serenity" (the name of this particular ship).I am showing my support for some of the best art coming out of Hollywood these days. It figures that the series was cancelled; it was on Fox. They wouldn't know quality TV it it bit them in the ass.Don't worry, another picure of me on a horse will return at some point.

Ahhhhh... I actually didn't like the show. This is not to question your taste, just saying it wasn't great from my perspective. There was only one episode which I thought was a truly original take on sci-fi and that was when the insane assassin/bounty hunter came in. The rest looked to derivative of other works... for me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Ahhhhh... I actually didn't like the show. This is not to question your taste, just saying it wasn't great from my perspective. There was only one episode which I thought was a truly original take on sci-fi and that was when the insane assassin/bounty hunter came in. The rest looked to derivative of other works... for me.

---

Well, you're completely wrong. The thing is, it's not really a sci-fi show. It is one on the surface but the true show, just like Buffy and Angel, is about relationships. And really fucking great writing. And cinematography.All of Whedon's work is like that.

Do either of you remember the original content of the post called Schraf & holmes

---

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:

Change in Moderation? (General discussion of moderation procedures)
or
Thread Reopen Requests
or
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
or
Introducing the new "Boot Camp" forum

Based on the content of the recent US Inaugural speech, I thought it might be good to revisit this thread.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No.

---

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
No webpage found at provided URL: www.1st-vets.us

I'm convinced. I've also been told Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq can't be theocracies. I asked and they said no too. I'm convinced!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)"...don't believe I'm taken in by stories I have heard, I just read the Daily News and swear by every word.."(Steely Dan)