|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 11:01 am
Guys, we need to yay or nay the last one. any takers?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 06, 2006 2:04 pm
After seeing Sylphi thoroughly tear apart that arguement, I'll have to say nay, as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 6:45 am
This is from Lala Lynn. I'm still in the process of interviewing her, if more i needed/wanted, but I think she's yay-worthy. Lala Lynn chikushou Well, now that we've finally somewhat got through where we're interview and stuff, I'll just start off with a question. What is your opinion on gay rights? Everyone is equal, right? Everyone has rights. Throughout my life I've been around people who were interested in their own gender and personally, I am as well. Although people may disagree with the issue at hand, there's nothing I can do about it except believe in my own. My rights, your rights, her rights. They stand firmly on two feet. Consider this, if beastiality is against the law because it "violates the rights of an animal," are those who oppose to gay rights saying that human beings of their own flesh are of lower stance just because their interests are different? Ah, but the subject of religion is definitely complicated. Where those who would vow their marraige rights underneath the house of one's god(s), they must understand that political rights and religious rights are different. Government officials can easily - and I say that loosely - alter the laws for the better of current society but religious officials don't have that same obligation because they're system is based on beliefs. Simply put: Rights for gays? Yes! But please don't try to change others beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:23 am
I would argue her points by Devils Advocate quite ferociously there. Her arguments are sort of... weak for such a topic, and thus, I'm sorta in limbo -- can I request a little more from Lala?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:13 am
Yip, I'm getting more. I may be on a different topic, though, as I didn't really feel like playing the devil's advocate in the interview just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:11 pm
I'm not sure about this guy. What'cha'll think? I probably picked a craptacular topic to discuss, but oh well. sweatdrop SlaveOfTheUnderWorld Koiyuki SlaveOfTheUnderWorld Koiyuki SlaveOfTheUnderWorld Well, I want to be with people like myself. So it's easier to communicate. Alright. What are some of your interests? SlaveOfTheUnderWorld Koiyuki I see. So what limits should be in place, to ensure this doesn't occur? Koiyuki SlaveOfTheUnderWorld It should begin at something simple, and easy. Like, maybe caretaker. A computer that can hold things and moniter them without many people. And if things go okay then it should evolve into something harder. Ending at construction. I see. If their AI can mimic that of a human, should they be treated as such? Hmm, I see. So they should largely be seen as toys, and not people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 8:39 am
I'm seeing too much opinion and too little argument.
For that reason, I'm tending towards a nay.
Can we see if we can get more support for his points?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2007 6:16 pm
chikushou I'm seeing too much opinion and too little argument. For that reason, I'm tending towards a nay. Can we see if we can get more support for his points? Well when I asked why he thought those things, he told be he had a disturbing childhood, which fails to back up his points. I'm now leaning towards a nay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:13 am
He's basically answering out of common sense. Nothing he has answered goes above basic knowledge or wit. I think you should either pick a new topic, or give 'im the boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 1:55 pm
Unfortunately I'm going to have to go with the majority of our other members.
Just not enough attention to logic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 08, 2007 9:03 pm
New Essays! Zorin Blitzkrieg This is a short essay on teen pregnancy and abortion. I believe that it's the teenagers' faults for not taking precautionary measures to keep from having children at an early age(didn't wear condoms, basically). They wanted sex and ended up with children, that's what sex does: MAKE CHILDREN!!!(as long as one isn't sterile/infertile/STD-free) And the expectant 'mothers' have the choice of abortion, which means the child will have barely any chance to live before doctors kill it. What makes mothers and doctors think that it's okay to kill a living being right when it's first experiencing life outside the womb?! This makes me wonder: What if Albert Einstein was aborted? What if M.L.K. was aborted? What if Da Vinci was aborted? The mother is basically saying 'I don't have the fortitude to take care of the baby, so I'll kill it.' There's nothing right about that. If you don't wanna take care of the child, at least send it to an orphanage for it to be taken care of. I like not his tone or condescending attitude. I say nay. The_Wicked_Man For the sake of argument, let’s imagine that those who view marriage as a holy union between a man and a woman that must be recognized in the eyes of God manage to get enough support to successfully deny this privilege (and all the social, medical, et. al. benefits that come with it) to homosexuals. Such a law would not only have serious consequences which affect gays but also endanger the rights and freedoms of anyone who doesn’t happen to be Christian. If the government were to succeed at preventing homosexuals from marrying and use religion for the basis of their argument, what is to stop them from creating similar legislation against heterosexual Atheists, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Jews and anyone else who does not believe in the Christian God? If personal liberties are to exist, it is necessary that homosexuals are ensured the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. As with racial segregation, there is no good which can come out of making full citizen rights exclusive to only people who have a sexual preference more people find agreeable. Such an act would only encourage discrimination against other groups of people and divide communities. This one seems to have a better head on his shoulders. I say yay. What say the rest of ye?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2007 6:40 pm
Hee hee hee, Wicked....
I know Wicked personally. He heard about the guild through me, but friendship aside, he's a very capable person who can think outside the box intellectually. He has a terrific sense of humor and laid back personality, but he still forms opinions on key issues and sticks to his beliefs. I recommend him.
As for Zorin, I don't believe he/she has considered hardly any of the outside factors. He/she hasn't taken into account about the failure of condoms and other contraceptives nor has considered the burden of enduring pregnancy versus abortion. This person seems to have a limited point of view and is probably very young.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:58 am
Wicked gets a yay from me. Two yays and a reccomendation get him in, I say. Well, to tell the truth, all he needed was a reccomendation from one of the guild...
And while there are some points in Zorin's argument (as there are points in every argument, by definition), I don't condone his tone or his train of thought.
I mean, what about rape victims? What about fooled couples? (Men who were told she was on the pill, women who pierce condoms, men who say they wear them, etc)
What about choice? I mean, I'm not really in favor of abortion, but, as a man, I have practically no say in the manner, even if the fetus in question were my offspring. (I find that sad, really)
Not only this, He states Einstein and M.L.K. as examples of what we've denied the world, but it's bogus, because looking at it that way, we've also denied the world terrorists, Jeffrey Dammers, Stalins, Hitlers. Useless, baseless assumptions do not an argument make. Please, send this reply to Zorin, and note his/her reaction. My decision rests upon it, since it's not final.
Oh, and do not send the red text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:40 am
Lord Vyce Wicked gets a yay from me. Two yays and a reccomendation get him in, I say. Well, to tell the truth, all he needed was a reccomendation from one of the guild...And while there are some points in Zorin's argument (as there are points in every argument, by definition), I don't condone his tone or his train of thought.
I mean, what about rape victims? What about fooled couples? (Men who were told she was on the pill, women who pierce condoms, men who say they wear them, etc)
What about choice? I mean, I'm not really in favor of abortion, but, as a man, I have practically no say in the manner, even if the fetus in question were my offspring. (I find that sad, really)
Not only this, He states Einstein and M.L.K. as examples of what we've denied the world, but it's bogus, because looking at it that way, we've also denied the world terrorists, Jeffrey Dammers, Stalins, Hitlers. Useless, baseless assumptions do not an argument make. Please, send this reply to Zorin, and note his/her reaction. My decision rests upon it, since it's not final.
Oh, and do not send the red text. Zorin Blitzkrieg Yuko Yamiyama Zorin Blitzkrieg This is a short essay on teen pregnancy and abortion. I believe that it's the teenagers' faults for not taking precautionary measures to keep from having children at an early age(didn't wear condoms, basically). They wanted sex and ended up with children, that's what sex does: MAKE CHILDREN!!!(as long as one isn't sterile/infertile/STD-free) And the expectant 'mothers' have the choice of abortion, which means the child will have barely any chance to live before doctors kill it. What makes mothers and doctors think that it's okay to kill a living being right when it's first experiencing life outside the womb?! This makes me wonder: What if Albert Einstein was aborted? What if M.L.K. was aborted? What if Da Vinci was aborted? The mother is basically saying 'I don't have the fortitude to take care of the baby, so I'll kill it.' There's nothing right about that. If you don't wanna take care of the child, at least send it to an orphanage for it to be taken care of. Thanks for your interest in the guild, hon. We've looked over your essay, and Lord Vyce had this to say, in response: Lord Vyce And while there are some points in Zorin's argument (as there are points in every argument, by definition), I don't condone his tone or his train of thought.
I mean, what about rape victims? What about fooled couples? (Men who were told she was on the pill, women who pierce condoms, men who say they wear them, etc)
What about choice? I mean, I'm not really in favor of abortion, but, as a man, I have practically no say in the manner, even if the fetus in question were my offspring. (I find that sad, really)
Not only this, He states Einstein and M.L.K. as examples of what we've denied the world, but it's bogus, because looking at it that way, we've also denied the world terrorists, Jeffrey Dammers, Stalins, Hitlers. Useless, baseless assumptions do not an argument make. Thanx Lord Vyce smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
