Annoyed by inconsistent political beliefs

[Anonymous]

I'm annoyed by inconsistent political beliefs. Here's a few:

GOP members who are anti-drugs, anti-drinking, anti-marijuana, yet vote to prohibit any kind of restrictions on tobacco companies

PETA members who say an animal life is equal to a human life, yet apparently don't care enough to protest against the millions/billions of rats, mice, and bugs killed each year, instead protesting to save a few thousand lab rats. They're all equal, right?

People who vociferously oppose using embryos for stem cell research because it's "kiling" the embryo, but who didn't say one single word back when (and now when) we throw away unused embryos. Which human lives are more important, a few dozen embryos used for research or a few thousand going in the trash? Where's the protests?

Abortion protestors who say that killing is wrong, then shoot at abortion providers.

Globalization protestors wearing Nike shoes, Levis, and Tommy Hilfiger shirts.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget anti-fur protesters (e.g., PETA) and the like that are pro-abortion!

[Rockhound]

Or the people who support obscene art in public museums as "free speach", but also support "speach codes" that restrict what inidviduals can say to each other, in colleges.

[Anonymous]

Here's one:

A drunk person is legally responsible for any harm caused while driving their car.

Yet, a drunk college co-ed generally is considered not responsible and incapable of giving consent to having sex; falls within the date-rape category. (No, she's not unconscious.)

Yet, a drunk college guy who has sex with the drunk college girl is considered responsible for his actions.

[Anonymous]

And another:

The NOW and the GLBT types who join in political ranks. Specifically, that what gay men do (repressively referred to as "sodomy") is considered a natural part of their identity and a beautiful expression of love between two committed people in a caring lifelong relationship.

Yet, when a straight man wishes to engage in the same conduct with a woman, it is considered a vile expression of male dominance over women.

[Anonymous]

Yet another:

Woman retain the "pro-choice" right to choose control over their bodies; that the unborn have no rights.

Yet, use the same abortion right to abort fetuses that are female or perhaps having an unfavorable trait, and you have an evil action.

[Anonymous]

"Don't forget anti-fur protesters (e.g., PETA) and the like that are pro-abortion!"

How is this inconsistent? Has PETA come out in favor of animal abortions or something, and I didn't hear about it?

[Anonymous]

People with Gay Pride and Darwin stickers on the same bumper.

[Rockhound]

People who atuomatically say any research that is funded by a corporation is tainted, but don't see the same in research funded by activist groups like the Sierra Club, NOW, or Families USA.

[Anonymous]

My favorite was reported in a newspaper opinion column. The columnist discussed a photo she had been sent of two women ("both are underdressed, and one has a whip"). Was this (a) male-oriented, and therefore degrading to women, or (b) an empowering representation of women's sexuality? If it was produced by men, it was (a), if produced by lesbian women, it was (b). The question she (the columnist) asked was: "Should I, as a straight woman, feel degraded or empowered?"

[Anonymous]

Pro-Choice people who feel that a man must accept the consequences of his actions and pay child support for the next 18 years, but a woman gets a second chance to change her mind.

Pro-Life people who only start to see the merits of the other side when it's their own daughter who ends up pregnant.

[Guerilla poster]

Farmers who are first in line when subsidies are handed out but complain about big government and the loss of private property rights

[Guerilla poster]

Farmers who are first in line when subsidies are handed out but complain about big government and the loss of private property rights

[Anonymous]

Israelis, who elect as their leader a man who allowed the massacre of hundreds of people, but act outraged at arafat because he allegedly allowed the massacre of only a few dozen israelis.

[Anonymous]

Pro-choice folks who will allow an innocent child to die for convenience of the mother, but are against the dealth penalty for criminals convicted of hideous crimes.

[Anonymous]

People who reject a faith in God, because it is something that cannot be "proven" with science, while they accept a big bang theory that would have them believe that all the matter of the universe was packed tightly into a bundle the size of a postage stamp right before the big bang. (...like that doesn't require a leap of faith)

[Anonymous]

Creationists who try to use science to discredit evolution, and yet conveniently ignore simple cosmologic observations, such as light from stars that are millions or billions of light-years away. (Thus negating the notion of a young universe.)

Creationists who encourage us to marvel at the wonders of God's creation, and to be humbled before the greatness of God, yet who arrogantly presume to know exactly how God brought his creation into existence. (And nothing you can do, say, or point to will ever change their minds.) (Which is why it ain't science.)

[Griffin 1]

"Creationists who try to use ... away."

Where is the inconsistency? If there is a God who can create a universe, then certainly the same God can place stars anywhere.


"Creationists who encourage us ... existence."

The Creationists will tell you that their knowledge comes from what is written in Genisis. Where is the inconsistency here?

[Anonymous]

The President(clinton) and most senators and representatives voted for the "Defense of Marraige Act" because, they said, there was something sacred about heterosexual marraige that would have been diluted by gay marraige. Most of these people were having affairs outside their own sacred heteosexual unions when they voted for this, and protected inherently moral heterosexuality from defective and immoral homosexuality.

[Anonymous]

Pro LIFE people who are for the death penalty.

Pro animal people who will kill or hurt humans for treating animals badly. People are animals too!!!

[Anonymous]

"'Creationists who try to use ... away.'

Where is the inconsistency? If there is a God who can create a universe, then certainly the same God can place stars anywhere."

I guess the light from these stars was already in transit when the star itself was made. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the light for millions of years.

[Griffin 1]

"I guess the light from these stars was already in transit when the star itself was made. Otherwise, we wouldn't have seen the light for millions of years."

If you believe in a God who can create stars, then it is not a stretch to believe that same God can place light anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Democrats who are pro marijuana but anti-tobacco. (At least anti-tobacco to the extent of getting a windfall of extra tax money).

[Anonymous]

A law and order guy who dresses up like a bat and then drives his car at speeds above the legal limit.

[G. Ringo]

The cosmological criticism of creation attacks a straw man that would not be a plausible interpretation of the Bible even without physical evidence against it. The Bible says that God created luminaries to cast light on the earth and to provide a reference frame for calendar calculations. Why would you expect Him to create stars in distant regions of the cosmos to cast light on the earth only billions of years later? He created stars on our past light-cone. God is the Place of the universe; the universe is not His place. The critics are trying to place God inside space-time to put the creation of stars in His past. God has neither past nor future. He arranges the stars in their watches in the sky as He pleases.

[Anonymous]

Griffin -

Descartes suggested in his proof of God's existence that God would not be a deceiver. Without recalling the specifics or the subleties of Descartes' argument, I would suggest that there SEEMS to be stars that are billions of light years away, and that the light left those stars billions of years ago.

Why would God deceive us in this regard?

[Anonymous]

God did not create an infant human so why would he create an infant universe that would take billions of years to develop.

Pro-Life people, I would imagine, would complain less if each fetus had its day in court with proper legal representation as do convicted criminals being put to death.

[Griffin 1]

If God placed stars billions of lights years away from us, why would you interpret that as a deception?

[Anonymous]

I'm still waiting for PETA to protest against animals who eat animals.

Surely we should stop wolves from eating rabbits and lions from eating zebras!

[Anonymous]

Why doesn't PETA protest against vegetarians? After all, aren't they eating the food that many animals would have eaten, thereby contributing to the starvation of these animals? Us carnivores, on the other hand, thin the herds, leaving more food for the remaining animals! :wink:

[fallout]

TTIA.

We should go back to anonymous posting. Less personal attacks. Less team play. No reason to snipe constantly.

Mods. Make this happen.

Thanks.

Perhaps a political area with all posts coming in under anonymous.