CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 33691
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:09 am
 


stratos wrote:
Unsound wrote:
Thanos wrote:
In a lot of ways such a system would make for an absolutely awesome world. Roll an 88 and you kill the dragon. Roll under that and you lose all your health care coverage for the next ten years. 8)


I honestly can't say for sure if we would be any worse off.

Can I apply for the DM job? I'd like to get to decide what you have to roll to legalize pot, or bring back the death penalty.


Ohhhh can I be the Chaotic Evil player even if I lose all my stuff do to my own fault I can steal everyone else's things. Wait would make me a liberal or a politician?



You know, it really scares the hell out of me that I know what you are talking about. 8O 8O


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 11158
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:31 am
 


stratos wrote:

Ohhhh can I be the Chaotic Evil player even if I lose all my stuff do to my own fault I can steal everyone else's things. Wait would make me a liberal or a politician?


Or...

Be an evil bastard all week and then go to confession and you're good to go.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2271
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 3:15 pm
 


Unsound wrote:

Define nonsense. is Elizabeth May's version of environmentalism nonsense? A lot of people would say so. Should she be barred from politics? What about Mulcair's economic ideas? If I think they're based on nonsense can I have him excluded from the political process?


I think Tricks is likely more or less referring to trying to create policy based on nonsense. In that regard we shouldn't listen to Elizabeth May's environmentalism policies if they are based on nonsense and it shouldn't be used to craft public policy in a secular government without good proof.

the same would go for abortion for example. If people wish to create anti abortion laws they those laws should be based on more then simply religious belief as it's nonsensical in a secular approach.

It's a stance I agree with. When your making laws that govern every Canadian citizen or at least any large number of them it's not unreasonable to demand that you must have reasonable evidence of your policy before implementation.

When we have too many people that belong to a certain faith in office it becomes easy to skip that part of the process and act based on dogma. I don't think anyone would want to reopen the gay marriage debate for example but if let's say the Christian heritage party got it's hooks in government they may propose a number of bills to do just that contrary to evidence there is a good reason to reopen the debate. (btw oddly enough I do think government should open the debate on the legal rights of priests to refuse marriage and on the legal right of marriage commissioners to be told out of the gates they cannot pick and choose.)


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:40 pm
 


So... where is the reasonable evidence that abortion on demand(which I presume you support) is a good thing for society? Seems to me that's a policy that's based on morals. Either a moral belief in freedom of choice, or a moral belief that abortion is murder. I can't think of any scientific studies that would neccesarily support one position or the other.

And again, who gets to define what's nonsense? Religious beliefs might seem like nonsense to you, but they aren't to the believers. What makes you right and them wrong? Shouldn't it be up to voters to decide if they want a religious person crafting laws based on the morality that goes with whatever religion they are?

What part of priets refusing to marriage to you think needs to be debated? I presume you're talking about gay marriage although you didn't specify...


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2271
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:20 pm
 


Actually when it comes to abortion there was a particular book that made a lot of anti abortion people rather angry when it came out years back. It was called freakonomics.

In it they quoted a certain study: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/ ... ed2001.pdf

Now I'm not going to hold up a single study here as some kind of absolute proof. What I am going to point out is that when you stop to think about it there is a lot of sense that less unwanted kids is going to result in less gangs and crime. More studies of this type should be done but people are just too afraid of the topic.

The important thing is to get this kind of discussion going. Your also right in that I stand by freedom before outlawing anything. I don't think it's a good thing to have a large government and the less they get their sticky paws in the better for us all. Don't outlaw something unless you have good proof of harm to more then just the individual making the choice.

To the second point we shouldn't allow laws based on religion or dogma to pass simply because a majority of voters align with a particular belief. I am going to say that when you are governing a large group of thousands or even millions of people it's irresponsible to base decisions on anything more then good evidence.

if we simply started passing "Christian" laws because the majority of voters are Christian what's to stop us from becoming a theocracy? We shouldn't do such a thing because democracy is a vastly superior system to theocracy.

Laws or motions that have no basis in evidence and are not demonstrable should be labeled as nonsense and left to rot. If something has a basis in good evidence or not is a discussion worth having in government.

Finally on to priests and marriage it's actually rather simple what I think. I think the legal end and the religious end of marriage are at an impasse and need to be separated. Simply have marriage commissioners handle the legal end and paperwork and let the clergy focus on the religious end. All current clergy who hold a commissioners license should be grandfathered in to the fact they can choose not to marry those who conflict with the faith. New commissioners would be told and held to a standard of universal acceptance out of the gates. No one would be placed in a situation they did not agree to at some point.

That way the priests who wish to avoid marrying gays can do just that while over time the issue becomes less and less relevant. It also means no church itself is forced to give a religious ceremony over a marriage it doesn't approve of. It's a way of respecting both sides while reestablishing the separation of church and state.

It's a rather simple fix that will make all sides happy over time and I don't understand how this has not been proposed up until now.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 5219
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:07 pm
 


TO the marriage thing, why would you have to take away the priests legal authority? That just means adding an unnecessary step for people who now have to get a priest for the ceremony and a commissioner for the legalities. Seems pointless to me. Agree that commissioners shouldn't be able to refuse to perform any lawful marriage. Although I do think that out of respect older commissioners with opinions can informally recommend other commissioners to anyone who comes to them with a marriage they're not comfortable with. As long as they're not dicks about it anyways.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 2271
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 10:15 pm
 


If Priests are open with performing all marriages there would be zero stopping them from getting a commissioners license. This just allows an ability for say the Catholic church to perform marriages without having to worry about the legal end as well since that causes such a sore spot with them having to be equal under law.

As for older commissioners I think that's why you grandfather in the "preference" rule for current license holders.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13971
PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:15 pm
 


If you are working as a marriage commissioner, then to hell with your beliefs. You are a CIVIL servant. That's the job you chose, that's the job you do. If you can't do the job impartially then go to divinity school, become a clergy person and deny them in your own church.

It pisses me off how long a really badly translated word in the Bible has caused a particular segment of society so much grief, and I'm not even gay.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Montreal Canadiens
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4616
PostPosted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 8:41 am
 


I prefer all religious types to keep their illusions private. We need far more secular humanism and far less religion of any stripe.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.