Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

To Tell the Truth

Lib at Heart Wrote: Oct 17, 2012 2:44 PM
I have to agree in part with MoreFreedom. I don't think Romney's policies will be all that different from Obama's. He talks a good talk, but just look at his actual record. If Romney does get elected by some miracle, it won't bother me that much. I was much more afraid of the crazy policies of Newt, Rick, and Ron. Any of those three in the White House would have terrified me. Of course, With Ryan in the number two spot, that could be a bit frightening knowing he's only a heartbeat away from the presidency. *shudder*
Biden was awesome. Now, if Obama will only channel some of that against Romney next time.
I don't know his name now. Who is he?
Well said. The problem many people have is that they think "free speech" means they can say anything they wish without repercussions.
AliveinHim....If it's against your wished, opt out. Or don't you understand simple ideas like that?
Mag. I completely agree with you on that point. People at the dance won't make a fuss. It will be others complaining. Kevlar illustrates my point perfectly.
Well, if the mother happened to be a lesbian, I can imagine a lot of people making a fuss about it. And many of them post on this site.
essie: Regarding your first paragraph, I won't even bother to rebut it. Making wild claims like that is an easy way to try to win an argument when you have no real support. You can make such claims in any debate, but that doesn't make it true. Just distracts for the actual debate by changing the parameters. In regard to your second comment, whether it is opt in or opt out, I don't care. As long as people have a choice. But opt out is often the preferred way in such cases, simply because it makes managing the list easier.
Dolo: Are you too lazy to read and think for yourself that you have to have Marybeth and her ilk do it for you? Parents can teach their children any moral behavior they want. The government is not making decisions for them. The decision of whether to allow their children access to these items is up to the parents. Plain and simple. The government is just making important and often desired options available. I won't even waste my time looking into the hypocrisy of your argument. You'd rather the government taught and enforced your own moral code on everyone.
Marybeth states: "Obviously, since NYPS is trying to solve such a serious problem, undermining the rights of parents to know about the prescriptions their children are taking is not relevant. " Parents were given the chance to opt their kids out of the program, as Marybeth previously noted. If parents do not want their kids to take part, they have the option. Don't pretend otherwise. There is no "undermining of rights" here.
In response to:

Truth 1725

Lib at Heart Wrote: Sep 26, 2012 11:32 AM
Quite often true. But can moral relativism and moral absolutism co-exist? That is, does every action have a moral absolute, or does moral absolutism cover only certain things? For example, there is a moral absolute against murdering someone. But what about littering? Hunting for sport? Cross-dressing? Can a person hold a morally absolute stance on some things, but a morally relative approach to others?
Previous 11 - 20 Next