• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Insane left-wing extremists to ban goldfish, circumcision

Having read the entire thread I'm going to make the generalization that the left leaning people are against allowing parents to make the choice of circumcising their children and right leaning people are for it.

Another generalization is that people on the left side are pro abortion and people on the right are anti abortion. I apologize for making the generalizations as I myself do not fall into a category like this but its just for arguments sake.

How does the pro abortion crowd fully support a parents right to choose to end the life of their child but not the right to perform a completely safe medical procedure? And how does the anti abortion crowd do everything possible to not cause any harm to an unborn child but completely supports the right of the parent to harm their living child?

I know I made some broad gereralizations but I'm sure there are some people who have commented out there that fall into the categories I have just mentioned. Seems to be opposing beliefs to me.
 
persim said:
Having read the entire thread I'm going to make the generalization that the left leaning people are against allowing parents to make the choice of circumcising their children and right leaning people are for it.

Another generalization is that people on the left side are pro abortion and people on the right are anti abortion. I apologize for making the generalizations as I myself do not fall into a category like this but its just for arguments sake.

How does the pro abortion crowd fully support a parents right to choose to end the life of their child but not the right to perform a completely safe medical procedure? And how does the anti abortion crowd do everything possible to not cause any harm to an unborn child but completely supports the right of the parent to harm their living child?

I know I made some broad gereralizations but I'm sure there are some people who have commented out there that fall into the categories I have just mentioned. Seems to be opposing beliefs to me.
Click to expand...

Liberals are known for being two-faced hypocrites. See my thread about the Obamacare waivers.
 
persim said:
Having read the entire thread I'm going to make the generalization that the left leaning people are against allowing parents to make the choice of circumcising their children and right leaning people are for it.

Another generalization is that people on the left side are pro abortion and people on the right are anti abortion. I apologize for making the generalizations as I myself do not fall into a category like this but its just for arguments sake.

How does the pro abortion crowd fully support a parents right to choose to end the life of their child but not the right to perform a completely safe medical procedure? And how does the anti abortion crowd do everything possible to not cause any harm to an unborn child but completely supports the right of the parent to harm their living child?

I know I made some broad gereralizations but I'm sure there are some people who have commented out there that fall into the categories I have just mentioned. Seems to be opposing beliefs to me.
Click to expand...

I would think the argument would be that abortions are only allowed during the time a baby can not survive outside the womb, and thus is still part of the womans body.
 
persim said:
Having read the entire thread I'm going to make the generalization that the left leaning people are against allowing parents to make the choice of circumcising their children and right leaning people are for it.

Another generalization is that people on the left side are pro abortion and people on the right are anti abortion. I apologize for making the generalizations as I myself do not fall into a category like this but its just for arguments sake.

How does the pro abortion crowd fully support a parents right to choose to end the life of their child but not the right to perform a completely safe medical procedure? And how does the anti abortion crowd do everything possible to not cause any harm to an unborn child but completely supports the right of the parent to harm their living child?

I know I made some broad gereralizations but I'm sure there are some people who have commented out there that fall into the categories I have just mentioned. Seems to be opposing beliefs to me.
Click to expand...

People on the right are called Conservatives and/or Right Wing(ers) but not every republican is truly Conservative in their thinking. Hence the term, RINO, or Republicans In Name Only. Arnold is a good example of a RINO.

Be aware that the democrats and republicans have changed over the years, and not every Democrat or Republican holds their basic party tenants sacred, so you end up with far left or far right democrats and/or republicans. And do not forget the Tea Party which is almost always critisized for doing things we never do.

Do a little research and discover what true Republicans and true Democrats/Liberals are and you will learn the differences between unfair/unsafe generalities and what are simply givens that require no apologies.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Do a little research and discover what true Republicans and true Democrats/Liberals are and you will learn the differences between unfair/unsafe generalities and what are simply givens that require no apologies.
Click to expand...

I certainly do understand the difference between true party beliefs and public perception of party beliefs. But you can't tell me that the majority of each party does not think the way I outlined above. Whether it is 51% or 99% of the the party, I would still say the majority of each feels like that. I simply apologized to the minority for lumping them in with the statement I made.
 
Bob Maxey said:
People on the right are called Conservatives and/or Right Wing(ers) but not every republican is truly Conservative in their thinking. Hence the term, RINO, or Republicans In Name Only. Arnold is a good example of a RINO.

Be aware that the democrats and republicans have changed over the years, and not every Democrat or Republican holds their basic party tenants sacred, so you end up with far left or far right democrats and/or republicans. And do not forget the Tea Party which is almost always critisized for doing things we never do.

Do a little research and discover what true Republicans and true Democrats/Liberals are and you will learn the differences between unfair/unsafe generalities and what are simply givens that require no apologies.
Click to expand...
No disrespect meant bob, but I'm sick and tired of people throwing around that label of what a "true" this or a "true" that is supposed to be. This is particularly true when it comes to politics and ESPECIALLY religion. who gave anyone the right to stand up and say that their particular brand of narrow mindedness is the only definition of truth and that only they are allowed to represent those ideals? where exactly is this governing body that defines what a "true Republican" "True Democrat", "True Christian" etc. is supposed to be? Just because one particular group ascendancy makes it the current flavor of the month, it does not mean that it is in any way the definition of a particular ideal.

Calling someone a RINO is not meant as a definition. It is a term used by folks who fancy themselves to be the standard bearer of what it means to be a republican and it is used as a derogatory term against those who share their party affiliation but don't share their particular views.

Unless there is some sort of governing mechanism that defines what a true anything is supposed to be, then there simply is no "True" idea holder and we throw out insults so freely simply because others have something to say that we don't necessarily agree with.

This rant wasn't aimed at you personally Bob. No offense meant.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
What's ok by me or not isn't relevant. The point is to protect the free practice of religion regardless of what others think.
Click to expand...
Okay, say I want to practice a religion in wich a father must rape a little girl everyday of her life, because my "god" commands it. I should be allowed to do it?
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
Liberals are known for being two-faced hypocrites. See my thread about the Obamacare waivers.
Click to expand...
Conservatives are known for being two-faced hypocrites. See my thread about Tennessee governor trampling on the constitution. Or Persim post you replied to. Or YOUR thread about Cali's governor....(BTW, I don't think that all conservatives are hypocrites)
 
nlsme said:
Okay, say I want to practice a religion in wich a father must rape a little girl everyday of her life, because my "god" commands it. I should be allowed to do it?
Click to expand...

There would obviously be certain regulations like making sure the girl is of legal age and that she is a participant in your religion beforehand.
 
This is a PSA to please refrain from attacking/insulting other members. Debate the topic on hand but when you go for another member, it'll only get you into trouble. This is the ONLY warning that will be given.
 
Sorry, I know that was directed at me. And I truly am sorry. But, I take offense to the thread title, and to the post where he says conservatives are known to be two faced hypocrites. BTW, I hold views on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and consider myself more of a centrist.
 
Bob Maxey said:
The 1st Amendment means this: there will not be a state religion. It also means that the government will not stop us from practicing our religions or religious beliefs, no matter what they are.

So you can be a Jew, a Mormon, or a Catholic; none of which will be the state religion or silenced through laws and edicts.

It does not mean you can do whatever you want in the name of religion, not should it. Our founding Fathers assumed wisdom would grow along with the country.
Click to expand...

The thing is, certain practices are such fundamental parts of certain religions that not allowing them does amount to stopping people from practicting their religion. Circumcision and Judiasm are an example of that.
 
nlsme said:
Sorry, I know that was directed at me. And I truly am sorry. But, I take offense to the thread title, and to the post where he says conservatives are known to be two faced hypocrites. BTW, I hold views on BOTH sides of the political spectrum, and consider myself more of a centrist.
Click to expand...
Funny you should say this. I brought up the exact same point to the staff's attention yesterday. We can surely have passionate and heated debates without resorting to the lowest common denominator. There is no need for insults and name calling in thread titles, except perhaps as bait to get folks to follow suit.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
The thing is, certain practices are such fundamental parts of certain religions that not allowing them does amount to stopping people from practicting their religion. Circumcision and Judiasm are an example of that.
Click to expand...
In "my" religion, raping ones daughter is a fundamental part of said religion. Yet, in "my" religion", you feel the daughter has to be of legal age, and a consenting party to said practice. Why does it not fit with circumcision? BTW, I would bet 80%+ circumcisions, are performed on non-jewish infants....
 
shadowninty said:
What about people bought to a Jewish Mother but non Jewish Father. What should happen then?
Click to expand...

Not sure . . . likely depends upon the parents and what they either both believe or can agree on. Lots of battles between partners with different beliefs.

I think the point is to keep the government out of it and either make it a state's issue or write a federal law that protects one's religious beliefs.
 
nlsme said:
In "my" religion, raping ones daughter is a fundamental part of said religion. Yet, in "my" religion", you feel the daughter has to be of legal age, and a consenting party to said practice. Why does it not fit with circumcision? BTW, I would bet 80%+ circumcisions, are performed on non-jewish infants....
Click to expand...

The public would never let your religious practices stand. The law would not allow it, and you would be hard pressed to find a legitimate religion that would condone the practice.

Your example is in no way the same as the Jewish Faith and circumcision.

The framers thought free expression of religion was vital so they gave us The First Amendment. They did not think religion would be perverted; your example, for example would be universally decried by the Founding Fathers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom