Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Heelaque

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Heelaque

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  1. For someone to commit any crime against morality in the name of their ‘invisible friend’ can be considered nothing more than a simple tactic from an adolescent mind to try and remove an obstacle from their life in a manner convenient to their primitive instincts. Religious genocide is when they are able to convince others to do that on their behalf.
  2. All people are vulnerable, it doesn't matter how old they are, you are just disagreeing over nuance at this point. Vulnerability is simply another cadence of society that should resonate between the genders and provides further reasons to unite against those who would try to exploit that vulnerability for their own personal gain, it has never been age or gender-specific.
  3. If you look beyond the need for a Governor General then you supersede the question of how to fire one.
  4. Society naturally favors balance and with two dominant genders this emerges as equality, due to the zero-sum game of gender bias. In an historical sense this has played out where one gender balances the shortcomings of the other in creating a partnership that, with equality, is capable of withstanding challenges of a far greater magnitude or frequency than the individuals could withstand alone. Due to the dynamic nature of societies and how we have built them, the aspect of gender superiority can be seen at play both in the margins and out in the open but it is always temporal.
  5. The lottery is a public system - winners are therefore declared publicly. The lottery is gambling - sometimes when you win, you lose (long-term). The lottery is a flawed - don't expect perfection with so many loopholes.
  6. The process of political reform is rarely framed as a spectacle, I’ll grant you that, however the validity of a system-change can not be measured by its entertainment value alone. Your anticipation that any attempt to change this system to then be rejected by the very elements it’s intends to change is fairly obvious, resistance would be expected but not impossible to overcome. As far as “trends reversing” you would tackle complacency with consistency. The political establishment could assist with that in so much as it would continue to commit acts of corruption reminding citizens o
  7. I'm not sure it would be something that could be instigated by approaching the people in power, you can't ask someone to put out a fire if their hands are already burnt. There would need to be a grass-roots movement, motivated by detailed instances of corruption and moderated by studies rooted in cause and effect. Recommendations can then be collected and prioritized after a formal public and impartial investigation of common practices. The various political parties can then run for future elections choosing to adopt any number of those recommendations as part of their platf
  8. In response to the opening post, and please correct me if I’m wrong but your concerns seems to revolve around the fabric of society being unraveled from within due to self-interested parties taking advantage of an oblivious public. We can indeed discuss the mechanisms that come into play when elements of a society turn parasitic and feed off the resources available without returning anything meaningful to that society. I put forward however that we could look beyond the symptoms and instead address a root cause of what allows such parasitic mechanisms to exist in the first place: a s
  9. That video is in direct response to Trump not the right-wing extremism. Trump is an ‘independent’ masquerading as a Republican and up to this point at least, the party doesn’t care so long as they stay in power but that gamble is apparently starting to weigh heavy on their supporters.
  10. The issues outlined in the Harper’s letter appear to be dealing with the symptoms not the cause - a reaction to members of the ‘moderate left-wing’ stepping further left towards extremist thinking. This motion towards more extremist left-wing absolutism does seem more reactionary than radical in nature due to the perception that the right-wing elements of American politics took their step further right and in doing so allowed them to take and then keep the presidency from a democratic winner of the popular vote. To a member of the moderate left-wing this result would have felt like p
  11. Thank you for furthering this conversation with both of those videos French Patriot, I have watched both of them with an open mind and in consideration my response follows: The first video seems to describe the purpose of religion as one that is meant to take our minds away from materialistic distractions and false worship and refocus our attention towards religious faith (a rhythmic recruitment video). As someone who is a believer "Jeff" is mistaking 'over-dependence' for 'worship' making such claims as (and I'm paraphrasing): Girls worshiping their boyfriends and 'cosmo' being th
  12. As an atheist reading through this thread I thought I would try and shed some light as to what atheism means to me and perhaps dispel the idea that it would be classified as a religion. I have found analogies can sometimes work well in conveying complexity so imagine that the various religions of the world are represented by the different colors of a rainbow. They are rich and varied but follow the same path (of worship and belief in this case). Now your own personal religion would be perceived as white - a color none the less but this one is special. You would argue that it ‘illuminates’
  13. I consider marriage to be a statement of maturity intended to formalize our monogamy as 'social' creatures, whereby two people indicate that they are capable of altruistically caring for each other regardless of current or future difficulties. The 'typical' (but not absolute) purpose of which implies that should offspring emerge from this union (through procreation or adoption) that these children will be cared for appropriately due to the notion that the partnership is collectively mature enough to weather the trials and consequences of raising physically and emotionally healthy children
  14. From what I understand 'equality' is an even starting point for a process and 'equity' is an equal share of the end result of that process. Lets consider the (ongoing) process to be 'human society' - at the beginning of human life we have an equal share of what is available to continue living and at the end you still have an equal share of what is available. This would mean that no matter what choices you made (good or bad) you still end up not effecting the personal outcomes you are left with when you die. The obvious issue with this model is that no matter how hard an individual wo
  15. It seems the title of this thread is fundamentally flawed as it pits the science of personal biology (nature) against the structure of a social upbringing (nurture) as though it could be simplified to being just one or the other (as humans we crave to parse simplicity from complexity in an effort to understand). Since we as individuals are the product of both (on every other metric governing our personality) it would seem logical to assume that sexual orientation is no different and so the validity of the original 'topic' can be considered flawed to the point of nullified. Sexuality
×
×
  • Create New...