Zygomaticus Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Originally posted by pbguy1211 I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country. First of all the comment was made, not as fact, but under the idea that sex between cousins would produce retardation in possible children. Second of all, it could be (and in most places, IS) considered incest. How many cousins in your family are married? Not many? If any? Didn't think so. Most places isn't this place. A culture different is not a culture wrong. It's just their culture. I know there's research that shows intermarrying like this reduces genetic variety and also produces not-so-healthy offspring, but it's been done for many centuries and it takes time to stop things like that. If you want an example, I'll give you one. I'm from India, and my grandfather's daughter, and my grandfather's sister's son married. Big deal. Their sons are all fine with college degrees and work... Being different isn't being wrong. Although, the disadvantages of this, when realized, could change things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by krkode Most places isn't this place. A culture different is not a culture wrong. It's just their culture. I never said it was "wrong" But I do think there's a little something wrong in the fact that there are so many people in the world who one could be attracted too... and someone picks their cousin?! Get out more often... meet some more people. Come on now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagobahn Eagle Posted April 1, 2003 Author Share Posted April 1, 2003 *Reads full page of flaming of c'jais* C' jais is right, and this has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. I find it very narrow minded of you that you think you know so much about "my" country. 1. Why do you say "my" country with " signs? If it's your country, it's your country. 2. Most families in the States marry outside of their family. I'm right? Well, then he's right too. You find it narrow-minded when someone's not ignorant? Well, IMO, get used to it, because most people aren't ignorant. Back on topic, maybe? What's all this got to do with sovereignity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by pbguy1211 I never said it was "wrong" But I do think there's a little something wrong in the fact that there are so many people in the world who one could be attracted too... and someone picks their cousin?! Get out more often... meet some more people. Come on now... It's not about attraction. Ever heard of "arranged marriages"? If you don't love the person your parents match you up with, you learn to love them. The world IS like that in some places. But stuff is different now...wester culture seeping through the gaps And my apologies. You did never say "wrong," you said, "not right" Sorry for taking this offtopic, Dago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by Artoo EPA, by either Reagen or Nixon I cannot remember. Very good! I was wondering if anyone would cite that one. Nixon had the EPA officially enacted during his administration. However, it has its roots in many of Roosevelts New Deal programs dealing with conservation and with the Kennedy/Johnson administrations' push for ecology awareness (remember Johnson's Great Society?). Nixon certainly was wise to jump on this platform in his campaign as it was very popular at the time. I'm not saying that all progress came from liberal adminstrations, but I will say that sometimes conservative adminstrations had some liberal ideas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle 1. Why do you say "my" country with " signs? If it's your country, it's your country. | \/ Originally posted by C'jais Sorry, but I find it very narrowminded to think that people are only allowed to marry someone outside the family, just because that's how it's done in your country. Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle 2. Most families in the States marry outside of their family. I'm right? Well, then he's right too. You find it narrow-minded when someone's not ignorant? Well, IMO, get used to it, because most people aren't ignorant. I'm more concerned with the idea of people possibly having messed up kids. I can clearly accept the fact that that's how it's done in some cultures... but I think that that's a fairly big risk to take... and i don't really agree with it. i dont really think it's worth it when there are so many people in the world. And you may truely be shocked how many "ignorant" people there are in the world... Depending on ones views and definition of the word ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zygomaticus Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I'm more concerned with the idea of people possibly having messed up kids. I can clearly accept the fact that that's how it's done in some cultures... but I think that that's a fairly big risk to take... and i don't really agree with it. i dont really think it's worth it when there are so many people in the world. Well, sure you could go try and explain that to them. Places where this happens have VERY low literacy rates. It'll take a long time for people to be educated enough to know this stuff. Whether you agree with it or not, it'll stay that way for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 to each his/her own... and i'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by pbguy1211 So it's right to show POWs being executed? That's called shadowboxing. And despite my username, it's not a dicipline that I support. POWs are being executed. So given that premise, it's the media's duty to show it. However, showing POWs in disgraceful positions is against the Geneva Convention, and therefore the former premise is overruled. However, I didn't comment on whether it was right or not, I just said that Al Jazeera is lying a lot less than CNN. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So is anything that comes out of Bush's mouth. And both el Prez' are so transparent that they would be amusing if they weren't directing military forces... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now that's an outright lie/mistruth. When the Iraqi leaders get on TV and say we're not even in their land... then days later say we're retreating and and we have video showing we're there... that's a lie. When they say we're coming in an killing civilians, that's an outright lie. If we were going in and balls to the wall... Iraq would have been a parking lot a few days ago. The only thing you could argue bush is lying about is the knowledge of Iraq's W'sMD. And that can't be proven until it's over. While they're lying every time they're on TV. Iraqi tv is OWNED BY THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT! They have editorial control on the station, and they don't allow satellite tv in their contry... so it's complete propoganda. More shadowboxing. I did not say that Hussein wasn't lying all the time. I did not say that the Iraqi TV wasn't making pro-Hussein propaganda. I did say however that el Prez is lying every time he's in the hot seat. And I did say that no American sender isn't spewing out pro-war propaganda. Now, the second of my actual statements is proved right here by simple comparison between the aforementioned sender and the CNN. The former statement can be summed up as follows: GOD is with the US in this war. The AXIS OF EVIL. The war will be waged to liberate the Iraqi people and to ensure the continued safety of the US. Never have I heard a greater load of BS. And never has anyone shadowboxed me so on these boards. Even the Creationists in the Swamp didn't go that far (although maybe it wasn't for lack of trying). quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [EDIT]I was watching Discovery Times this afteroon... Saddam's first wife was his cousin... interesting... just an odd random fact for you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's not very odd in easter civilization. But their last names had to have been different... Like, if I still believed in that, or we followed that, it would be okay for my son/daughter to marry my sister's daughter/son. (of course, once she marries and changes her last name) - and that's about as close as it gets... You are in DK, I believe. Not that I'd want to, but... um... isn't that... um... really not right? Can't see what's wrong with it. Unless you are some overzealous fundamentalist with a religion that forbids it. Because certainly there can be no rational objection against it. and can lead to retardation in the children? don't you need to be seperated more in the bloodline? It's far enough removed. I never said it was "wrong" Hmm... Seing these threads in one piece certainly adds perspective... Roosevelts New Deal The one that was ruled to be against the Constitution (when it had already had its effect and it was free to score a few cheap political points on it)? Now, getting this thread back to topic (is it even possible anymore, or has it degenerated into mindless mud-throwing?): I believe that the Nation-State construction is inadeqate to fulfill the demands of the future. I think that in a global world we need a global government, that, mind this as it is an important point, even the strongest defer to. However there is little or no chance of the dismantlement of the Nation-State in one swoop, and we certainly don't have a functioning global government, so I think that the best alternative is to work towards increasingly larger unions and trade/defence pacts, that ensure fairness (ok, that might be too great a demand) and which, in time, should be merged into a one-world government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy_dog no.3 Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Yeah! World Government... *goes off to make thread* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar The one that was ruled to be against the Constitution (when it had already had its effect and it was free to score a few cheap political points on it)? Yeah... that's the one! Originally posted by ShadowTemplar I believe that the Nation-State construction is inadeqate to fulfill the demands of the future. I think that in a global world we need a global government, that, mind this as it is an important point, even the strongest defer to. It's interesting to note that NGO's (non-governmental organizations) continually gain significant power within the world. Some corporations even earn more than the the GDP's of many nations. Whether we like it or not, global consermerism will likely be the driving force to unifying the world. In the 20th Century (perhaps the 19th as well), corporations have been responsible for many rebellions, uprisings and wars. The Shell Oil debacle in Nigeria is a good example. As is the Somoza regime in Nicaragua. As corporations continue to pour more money into the politics of my country, I forsee less governmental restriction on corporations and more corporate restriction on government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Lol. That's easily solved, Skin: Ban secret political donations... The former (or was it the current?) German Chansellor (almost) got his butt busted because of secret political donations, which is illegal in Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbguy1211 Posted April 2, 2003 Share Posted April 2, 2003 Originally posted by ShadowTemplar Lol. That's easily solved, Skin: Ban secret political donations... While it's a nice idea... the problem is it'll never happen. Here they aren't really secret, but you don't hear about them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.