Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

whf, on 23 May 2011 - 03:43 AM, said:

your common sense is illogical. watch expelled. your just shrugging off a topic because you don't have an opinion, thats makes ignorant to this topic and whether you like it or not you are a self-centered person like nearly everyone in this world. including me. i bet your the type of person who doesn't like to hear bad news or doesn't care if bad news comes, unless it affects you.

This post has been edited by Meleeman: 23 May 2011 - 03:59 AM

youre a moron.
of course i have an opinion, but i dont want to argue about it the same way i dont argue about many controversial topics.
people are very stubborn and if you think arguing with anyone about this topic is going to change their opinion on it, then youre fucking dumb.
someone is going to rip you apart and bring up logical points against you like "it doesnt affect you at all" and "shouldnt you be focusing on stopping people from hurting eachother rather than loving eachother?" or maybe even disregard your actual argument and call out how you enforce your argument on people by feeling the need to put people down for who they are and how they are born, and think that anyone supports them is a "metro-sexual democrat". youre a joke, even as far as homophobic people go.
but guess what? you are going to give some bullshit reasons and say OH I SAW SOME GAY GUYS KISSING A GAY GUY RAPED ME AND GAYS ARE BAD IT SAYS SO RIGHT IN THE BIBLE RIGHT UNDER WHERE IT PROMOTES UNDERSTANDING AND TOLERANCE TO EVERYONE and you will go back and forth and blah blah blah
what will be accomplished? nothing. fighting with you about why you cant accept the concept that some people are born different than you sounds about as much fun as shoving a blender up my ass, and probably a lot less productive too.

Meleeman, on 23 May 2011 - 03:56 AM, said:

I agree with snooths.

notsureiftrollingorjuststupid.jpg

whf, on 23 May 2011 - 04:15 AM, said:

I'm sorry that was a mistake made on my part, i shouldn't have assumed you didn't have an argument. however all these controversial topics, abortion, gay marriage, evoulution and creationism, sides are taken because of people's world view. my world view was much like yours earlier in my life. but i saw this video that changed my veiws on the world completely, and i don't even have to belive in god to belive it.

you know maybe your right. maybe i shouldn't hate gays. i still belive it's wrong though.

they will burn in hell if they don't repent. lol. not like any of us will go to heaven that easily either.

Meleeman, on 23 May 2011 - 04:35 AM, said:

Especially not you.

it was a joke comon.

Oh boy, a Republican who believes in creationism.

You're really stupid, Meleeman. Like incredibly fucking stupid.

I won't even grace your idiocy with an argument.

Every time I see a "pro ignorant hate" towards gays and gay marriage bumper sticker, I really really would love nothing more than to take the crowbar out of my car and smash the windshield and lights of the hater.
See? Hate breeds violence.

This post has been edited by ChewySmokey: 23 May 2011 - 08:40 AM

EDIT: Whoa why did Firefox not show me all these other posts last time I loaded the page? I'll get back to you when I've checked what's relevant to say.
EDIT 2: Okay, my original comment is close enough to what I would have said if the thread had loaded properly, so I won't bother rewriting it. Although of course if you could be kind enough to grace us with a summary of your worldview, we could help you by pointing out why it's wrong; as it is all we can offer is that it's wrong since it gives such clearly wrong answers.

Meleeman, if you are a troll you are the winner, because I am psychologically incapable of not responding to what you have to say. But I promise to keep it brief, since it probably is true that you're either trolling, too stubborn to listen to me, or too stupid to understand me. As usual, I shall argue in chronological order

1) Being gay is not genetic; if it were it would have died out. At best it's a personality flaw, and we put up with plenty of those from people.
2) And were these bad experiences in any way related to their homosexuality? Or worse than the six to 49 times as many you've had with straight people? Stop lying.
3) Evolution has 150 years worth of scientific evidence. Creationism has a book written by some unknown dude with delusions of grandeur.
4) I rather think that killing a criminal hurts the criminal. Also, if you believe their is any contradiction in lying not being wrong when it doesn't affect anybody, you're wrong.
5) The observable universe alone is estimated to contain at least 3*10^22 stars, most of which probably have planets. Somewhere some sort of live can exist sure is unlikely to exist.

There, that wasn't so ranty, now was it. You hardly need to scroll at all to avoid the information you don't want to see.

This post has been edited by Borg Lord: 23 May 2011 - 08:51 AM

I'm just on the last page of this thread and reading from the beginning and onward. This is before I read anything else, nya, so this is just based on the eighth page, meow. People shouldn't be viewed as gay or straight, they should be viewed as people. Marriage means a lot emotionally and stuff, but some of it in a governmental perspective, is just a piece of paper that says you are married and are living together. Marriage is more ceremonial, and people put commitment in it, but loving another person should be commitment and lover over ceremony. And yes, being gay is in genetics. It's a recessive trait and it still lives on and stuff. You don't chose to be your sexuality, the genes from you parents and your parents' parents and their parents and so forth decides your sexuality. Gay marriage should be legalize because even in a democracy that sometimes is fake I believe people should sometimes get what they want. It's them saying, "Hey, I love (him/her) so much that I want to say that officially the government knows us as a couple." So fuck anyone who hates gays just because their gays, and fuck people who use religious shields to hide this hate. If they are going to hell, let 'em! It's not your concern! Fuck off! It's no of your damn business who I'm fucking. And yes, religious shields try to cover all, like the thousands of innocent lives that the crusade had brought forth. So in conclusion, gays should get married and fuck homophobic people.

This post has been edited by DMLD96: 23 May 2011 - 09:25 AM

People need to stop thinking about "What are the chances of this planet being exactly suited for us".

Once you compare it to the infinite universe, you have to realise that, actually, it was almost certain that there was going to be at least one planet somewhere capable of supporting life. As for us, we are who we are because it just happened that our form was the most suitable for the habitat that just happened to be made.

It's not a coincidence, it's happenstance. If you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite amount of time, eventually you'll have a room full of dead monkeys the entire work of shakespeare.
If you give an infinite amount of space an infinite amount of time, you'll eventually have life of some sort, and that life will take whatever form is most suitable for its environment.

Edit: Wait, how did this topic get onto evolution in the first place?

This post has been edited by Darth GW7: 23 May 2011 - 04:36 PM

beats me.


anyway, I'm just gonna throw my opinion at you guys, with a bit of back story.

I am LDS. Mormon. goody two shoes. whatever.
my church, until recently, does not approve of gay marriage. recently they've just been disapproving but tolerant of it.
this is not a religious thing to me, so i don't care about their opinion.

frankly, I think that gay marriage should not be a service conducted by any church, that, if wanted, it should be a contract made using the government. simply stated; marriage license, no church. end of story.

I'm not gay, so I don't care which way it goes in the end. I just think that to preserve the separation of church and state, a marriage license should be provided to any couple that desires one. But if they want to walk down the aisle, they have to find a church that will allow them to on their own.

Hmm, I suppose you're right there, telling the church that they have to allow gay marriages no matter what would be like forcing them to follow a different religion or something.

I'm sure someone, somewhere would be willing to provide weddings for gay couples if the law was changed to allow it, even if it wasn't a church, I'm sure that they would be happy as long as there was some sort of ceremony to celebrate the occasion.

Darth GW7, on 23 May 2011 - 04:36 PM, said:

Cedar, on 23 May 2011 - 06:13 PM, said:

Darth GW7, on 23 May 2011 - 06:38 PM, said:

First stop with the evolution thing ans saying sexuality is accident. Second, take religious aspects out of it. The current pope is gay (and there is proof) and Mormon-logy stuff, it's a religion based on far fetched truth and beliefs are rather strange. It might as well morph with Scientology and make Mormon-to-logy. (Most of them stuff is greed based and false.) Take out Christianity, since many priests have their hands on the altar boys. Now Judaism, which doesn't really talk about sexuality that much, and Islam, which basically has a Qur'an that is made up of the Torah and the Old Testament and some bonus stuff, are taken out. We have Yoruba, Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, none of which complain about sexuality. So take out the whole religious aspects, since they crumble easily, plus Christianity oft contradicts itself and gave the argument making it purely a hate based thing. (Fun fact: Gays statistically have bigger penises then the hetero counterpart and most homos are actually better in morality then the so-called "Saved People:".) I'm not going to ramble on about the faults Christianity since it's neither here nor there. But, in Americas favorite theatrical prop, it says to love your neighbor. It also says God loves all his "children". So, when you say, "God hates faggots!" or something, change it to, "I love my faggot neighbor, like what the bible told me too!" If He truly didn't want 'em, why'd He make 'em if you believe He did? (See the contradiction? ) Judge a person not by sexuality, but by their actions.

Susan, on 23 May 2011 - 08:09 AM, said:

yet you replied. i'm curious. explain why i'm stupid. btw just because i belive in creationism/intelligent design doesn't mean i belive in god.

Meleeman, on 24 May 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

Okay, I know it's not my business, but step back and look at what you are. A Republican that has intelligent thoughts? It's assumed you have to be Christian, if you're Republican. Republicans go toward Conservative views which means that they are Christian, nya, or some other idiotic thing.

no one is strictly republican. i never said was a republican did I? i only implied it.

DMLD96, on 23 May 2011 - 08:55 PM, said:

yeah, morality on government standards.
the bible does not contradict it self. you simply misunderstand the context in which it is being referred to. but you do make a valid point because nowhere in the bible does it say to discriminate against gays. it just says it's wrong.

[/quote]
yeah, morality on government standards.
the bible does not contradict it self. you simply misunderstand the context in which it is being referred to. but you do make a valid point because nowhere in the bible does it say to discriminate against gays. it just says it's wrong.
[/quote]
Yeah it does. Read the fucking thing! It's the reason I'm not Christian.

Borg Lord, on 23 May 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:

okay. 1)your're right. i have no fricken idea.
2)i'm not lying. i could tell he serious in his actions. but you probably won't be convinced because you are just as prejudiced as i am.
3)Creationism/Intelligent design is a valid theory, compared to the big bang theory, it makes more sense because if a cell was to be made by primordial soup, a living cell needs at least 250 proteins to survive, and in an enviorment of the time earth was formed. impossible. anywhere else is impossible. my reason beliving in intelligent design/creationism is this. My link
i would like to explain further. but this tells my beliefs better
4)some criminals have families. do you still think it's not wrong to kill people? and i was trying to make a point about morality if you didn't notice my sarcasm.
5) there is no way for a cell with only 250 proteins at the simplest be able to survive anywhere in space. even if the temperature and conditions were perfect. the genetic material would have to have come from somewhere maybe a race from another dimension, crazy as it sounds, maybe from a material we haven't discovered yet, maybe even from an omnipotent god.

This post has been edited by Meleeman: 24 May 2011 - 04:28 AM

If the Bible says it's wrong to be gay, that is discrimination by the definition of the word. Shut up, religionfags.

wrong–adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.

nowhere does it say discrimination in it.

nor does it imply descrimination although you would like to think so.

Meleeman, on 24 May 2011 - 04:40 AM, said:

Oh it only commands people TO KILL PEOPLE WHO SLEEP WITH THE SAME FUCKING SEX.

Goddamn. Just... Goddamn! How can you be so damn stupid??

Meleeman, on 24 May 2011 - 04:10 AM, said:

2) You're absolutely right. I am extremely prejudiced against idiots and bigots. I guess you caught me.
3) I'll get back to this one; I figure I owe it to you to watch that video so I can better explain why you're wrong, it's wrong, and how gullible you must have been to believe it. I'd like to get through the other points first though.
4) I suppose you must have had trouble reading through my sarcasm, or I misjudged yours. So I'll lay out two scenarios of what's been said so far, nice and straightforward:
You said "if you judge by what hurts people, killing criminals is right" by which you meant "killing is wrong, so utilitarianism (sorry but big words mean less redundant typing; look it up if you must) is wrong." I responded "killing criminals hurts them. Problem solved." You responded "killing criminals hurts their families. Why do you want to kill them?" I now respond "were you even listening?"
or
You said "if you judge by what hurts people, killing criminals is wrong" by which you meant "killing criminals is okay, so utilitarianism is wrong." I still responded "killing criminals hurts them. Problem solved." You then said (actually in this scenario I have no idea what you were trying to say just now). I now respond "your morals are seriously messed up; seek help."
5) I could bring up the fact that some life, including for example tardigrades which are multicellular, can survive in space, or that you don't need nearly so much complexity to have something capable of replicating itself, but it seems like a waste of time to elaborate on those ideas unless you give me some reason to believe you have even the slightest idea what you are talking about here, or at least that you have the slightest idea what point you are even responding to.

Oh, and while I'm watching that video, you can get to work on explaining the story with human sacrifice. I remember it's in Genesis somewhere. You know, the guy who has to be general against some invading group and sacrifices his daughter in gratitude for God having him win the battle. If you know the Bible so well I'm sure you remember his name, so I don't have to go to the trouble of looking it up.

Alright, watched those ten minutes. I hope you are linking the most important parts, by the way, since I'm probably not going to bother searching through the whole thing without any indications of what to focus on rebutting, and of course if I don't know in what ways you're wrong I can't even try to help you become less wrong.

So, anyway, a clip of a fortune-teller with a crystal ball. That's quite a convincing rebuttal of life forming on crystals. I may just have to change my mind right now. Okay, fine, that is the most egregious example, but simply saying "Ha, that's ridiculous!" does not constitute a proper counterargument. And if it does, I'm going to say right now, "Intelligent design? Ha, that's ridiculous!" And just like that you are convinced.

And let's see, the points put forward . . . first of all, we've got the statement that evolution is less mathematically rigorous than physics. Congratulations, you've just figured out that biology is as hard a science as physics! As the six billionth currently living person to do so, you win the fabulous prize of a slow clap, absolutely free! Now what do I win for noticing the lack of precise math in the origin of life as we know it being "a wizard did it"?

And next, we come to the willingness of scientists to admit when they don't know something. I'm glad that the video is balanced enough to point out the scientist's virtues. I think I can count myself with them, too; I don't know how such stupid ideas originate and will freely admit this, but still am happy to believe empirical evidence that you exist. Now tell me, where did the intelligent designer originate from?

Unfortunately, this now brings us to the blatant lies. Such as that Miller's experiments were a failure; quite the opposite in fact. He successfully created organic molecules, some quite complex, just by putting a little lightning through our best guess of the early Earth's atmosphere. Anybody who was expecting life to spring out of it clearly doesn't understand the difference between a bottle over the course of days and a planet over the course of millions of years (give or take; it is a little hard to determine precisely when the first life evolved since single cells seldom leave fossils, so as much as a billion years for the first successful cell to happen to form is not out of the question). I would think the difference would be obvious, but then again I'm not very good at estimating the extent of human stupidity. Or that life requires 250 proteins; fatty acids like the ones that make up modern cell membranes will naturally form spherical structures in water, and will destabilize and divide in two when they get too big from incorporating molecules picked up from their surroundings. A strand of RNA will tend to replicate a mirror copy of itself assuming there are individual bases floating around, and we've figured out how such bases would spontaneously form from smaller organic molecules. Put that RNA strand inside a pocket of fatty acids, and put it in a solution holding various raw organic molecules, such as say any pool of water on the primordial Earth, and you've got yourself a very simple example of life, and all for the low low cost of zero proteins. Sure, it can't control its motion, interaction with its surroundings, or how often it replicates in any way, but it can replicate and that's all it needs to be able to evolve. Evolution has plenty of time to provide everything else we're used to seeing in cells today.

And finally, I am a bit dubious about the credentials of those scientists, since it was only mentioned that they had them. Even if we are kind enough to just assume they all have PhDs in something related in some way to biology, thus making two unwarranted assumptions, we still run into the problem that you can always find people who got an extensive education, then subsequently suffered brain damage as long as you spend enough time looking. If you take the time to pick out the correct biased sample, you can get any consensus you like. By the way, I do not support a double standard. I have no credentials you know of; I make my arguments from memory mostly and never bother to cite my sources. I offer no proof beyond my stated allegiance to truth that I'm not making everything I say up. I do this because I don't actually care about convincing you; I doubt I could, you struck me immediately as being extremely set in your views. I just like having someone I can be sarcastic at without having to worry about thus blunting the effectiveness of my actual arguments.

And for your next trick, I suggest you bring up eyes. Eyes are quite possibly my favorite anti-evolution argument to rebut.

This post has been edited by Borg Lord: 24 May 2011 - 08:58 AM

Meleeman, on 24 May 2011 - 03:00 AM, said:

Wait, what?
Intelligent design NEEDS a god. You can't believe in one without believing in the other, there has to be some form of deity that has created life. That's where the term "Creationism" comes from.
You may not believe in the christian god, but you must believe in some sort of god if you're a evolution denier creationist.

Meleeman, on 24 May 2011 - 04:10 AM, said:

We're doing bullet points now? Yay! That means I can tear apart your argument in well-structured points of my own!

1) If you have no idea, stop talking. Don't talk about what you don't understand.
2) Your experiences with a few people doesn't give you the right to generalise it to everyone else.
3) The big bang theory and evolution are two completely seperate theories. One has tons of evidence to back it up. One is a mere theory. Evolution is not a theory. It has been proven. It is real. It has happened. It is happening. You can believe that god created the universe and I wouldn't be able to prove you wrong. You could say that evolution is a lie and I could rip your heart out and eat it.
4) Are you generalising criminals to murderers? Typical republican.
5) If you had any sort of biological knowledge you would know that organisms synthesise their own proteins from the elements around them. The proteins don't need to be right there ready for use; indeed, proteins are generally too big for cells to absorb them in the first place. The genetic material was made from the elements that were readily available billions of years before life even appeared.

Darth GW7, on 24 May 2011 - 08:52 AM, said:

I know you're on my side, but still I resent the implication that the big bang is not well-supported. Sure there are other theories that account for cosmic expansion, but in cosmology, you don't get much better evidence than being able to see the radiation of the big bang, cooled right down to 2.7 Kelvins by the expansion of the universe just like it should be, in any direction you care to look.

Also, in science, a theory is something that is at least adequately supported. The big bang and evolution both wear their theory statuses with pride.

Evolution is not a theory. Not anymore. It's an undeniable fact.

The big bang still needs more evidence, but we're getting there.

This post has been edited by Darth GW7: 24 May 2011 - 09:09 AM

Dr Noyd, on 22 May 2011 - 05:17 AM, said:

So much win in what he said.

This post has been edited by Blazer: 24 May 2011 - 10:28 AM

Quote

Ahum. This is not true. Not at all.

ILB is correct, if only because theories cannot be proved, only disproved.

Evolution is a theory, as is the Big Bang. Both are well-supported by evidence. That's about as good as it gets for theories, because there's always the small possibility that one can come up with an even better explanation to fit the observed data.

It's amusing how people throw around the "It's only a theory!" card when in reality a theory has the highest level of credibility possible in empiric science (The equivalent in pure mathematics is theorem, although theorems have to be mathematically proven to be true). When something is called a theory and not a hypothesis, it's likely that several scientists have already managed to reproduce the effects that it predicts.

And this is the reason why the Riemann hypothesis is just a hypothesis. Even if it's apparently a conjecture. Don't ask. Probably has to do with mathematics not being empiric.
I was also going to say something about the Pointcaré Conjecture but apparently it was proved in 2006. Well, I guess that's an example, too, sort of.

Edit: Wait, this is the Gay Marriage thread?

This post has been edited by esalaka: 24 May 2011 - 04:09 PM

I agree with Richard Dawkins on this matter: Anyone who insists that Evolution is simply a theory, a hypothesis, conjencture - they are equivalent to those who deny the holocaust.

They are Evolution Deniers, and I just hope that they will open their eyes and realise that yes, we are descended from the same ancestors as gorillas, monkeys, whales, giraffes, dinosaurs and even flowers and trees. And that's nothing to be ashamed of, in fact, it should make it easier to understand just how important preserving these creatures are.

Of course some people would rather we just wiped them all out and replaced them with smog, poison and, most importantly, money.

I do not deny the plausibility of evolution. It is the very best theory we have for explaining life as it exists today (however, I do believe there are some things that it cannot explain in its current form). However, saying "Evolution is undeniable fact! It is a law of nature!" is just as silly as saying "Evolution is just a theory! There is no truth to it!" because both deny the basic rules of science, and the proof that we have been able to gather, to an equal degree.

geez, you guys need to learn to sit on the fence.

1. although the bible shows that all creatures were created by God, it only specifies the Garden of Eden.
2. we have no idea how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden.
3. God made physics (obviously) so what's to say he wouldn't use physics to do what he wants to do?
4. no being lacks a sense of humor. why do you think God made giraffes and elephants?

my THEORY is that God put everything in the Garden of Eden the way it was supposed to be, then put the rest of the world on auto-play until it got to about the right point. and if something wasn't quite right, he edited it or removed it (neanderthals). and there you have it. evolution and creationism.

Cedar, there's a flaw in your logic.

God doesn't fucking exist, the bible is one giant fairy tale.

The bible's cool, there's a lot of stuff there that I can agree with such as "Forgive your neighbour".
There's just a lot I don't agree with, too.

Susan, on 24 May 2011 - 06:01 PM, said:

Oh boy

Atheist/Christian flamewars, I love these

esalaka, on 24 May 2011 - 06:28 PM, said:

Pretty sure we've had about 3 of those already in this single thread.

We need some flamewarsmen.

only problem is i don't flame. i don't approve of the swearing, but it's your right not to believe in God. The Bible does have flaws though. too many re-translations make for poor reading. if you want flames from me it'll have to be around a campfire. sorry.

Cedar, on 24 May 2011 - 06:47 PM, said:

Er... this might be the forum for you then.

lol yeah. i'll tolerate it, i just don't approve. i figure that swearing shows a lack of vocabulary and therefore intelligence, so if you're gonna swear, make up your own words/phrases instead of using someone elses. plus they're tons funnier.

if you say "fuck" to amplify a point you must be stupid BREAKING NEWS

To whoever said:
"Wait, what?
Intelligent design NEEDS a god. You can't believe in one without believing in the other, there has to be some form of deity that has created life. That's where the term "Creationism" comes from.
You may not believe in the christian god, but you must believe in some sort of god if you're a evolution denier creationist."

Intelligent design? Basically it's a group of people trying to have control of one another. We as humans always try to be better than one another, if you think about it. But back to the point, God pretty much sounds like bullshit and the bible is just another way of controlling one another. Though, it sometimes has good ideas, like love on another, it does pass off some bullshit things.

Blazenarm, on 24 May 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:

*suits up in armor* Alright, who to kill beat with logic first? (This is just a joke.)

yeah pretty much.

so instead of saying; "You're a !@#$%^& moron!"

you can say; "Even dogs deem your stupidity to be too rank to roll in!"

or something similar.

"That is !@#$%^& awesome!" = "That is a giant pool of manly awesome!"


humor minus vulgarity. plus appropriately styled exclamations and emphasis that you can use in the future.

Cedar, on 24 May 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

*imitates Eric Cartman* Fuck that shit! I'mma curse up what I want to! Then I'mma eat a chicken pot-pie! *back to normal* Anyways, fuck that shit. Besides, saying use your own words as a defense is stupid. We are speaking English, and we don't own that language. Somebody made it up, and now we are using it. That means the next time the judge tells you to put something in your own words, say "Nic narc fliggy flack-o-flu!"

This post has been edited by DMLD96: 24 May 2011 - 09:31 PM

Also, vocabulary doesn't determine anything at all. And I can be perfectly creative with swearwords. Both of those example you gave, Cedar, are nonsensical and pretty damn stupid. You're the living proof of my point.

And get the fuck back on topic, you morons. This thread is about gay marriage, not your retarded personal beliefs regarding the English language.

This post has been edited by SushiJaguar: 24 May 2011 - 09:40 PM

SushiJaguar, on 24 May 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

*high fives Sushi* So all in all, gay marriage is a controversial topic. I believe you shouldn't give a damn about whether a person is gay or pan or straight or whatever. If someone wants to get married, let 'em. It's not going to stop them and me from plowing the same sex. People won't stop donkey-punching or seventy-oneing each other just because they can't marry.

Alright guys, so excuse me for not sifting through 9 pages of shit to figure out what the fuck is going on, but judging by the last two pages, this seems to be about 'who is a moron' as opposed to gay marriage. So I'm going to ask it, blunt and flat out; I want to know what people have against gay marriage. Tell me the problem. And I know, it's probably all already been mentioned, but as I just said, it hasn't been brought up in awhile, so I think repeating a little bit of relevant information as opposed to babbling slander about other forumites would be a reasonable request.

This post has been edited by Meowth: 24 May 2011 - 09:50 PM

Meowth, on 24 May 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

Well, religion plays a huge role in it, but it's also another way to control one another, just like Christianity. (See the connection?) other factors lie, but I wanna see others responses first.

DMLD96, on 24 May 2011 - 10:02 PM, said:

I can see religion's role, but what do you mean it's also another way to control one another?

Meowth, on 24 May 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Let's do religion, because that's easy to point out. There's:

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER

Obedience: respect for authority. Just another name for controlling people. The truth is that obedience and respect shouldn't be automatic. They should be earned and based on the parent's performance. Some parents deserve respect, but most of them don't, period. I believe as people should be given a little respect at first, and see what happens from there, proving whether they deserve it or not. The basic level of respect that should be given is, "Thank you," and stuff like that. Obedience is given with enough respect, which, as little children, we are brain washed to give respect to people that sometimes don't deserve any and obedience is given to people that don't deserve it, like crooked cops. Crooked cops, who have authority, are powerless people searching for power to use on others to do bad things. They take advantage over powerless people, when they themselves hardly have any I.Q., I.Q., for some reason, which is not needed to become a police officer. (Ain't that about a bitch?)