A Sign of Things To Come? “14”

Kids at the Danville Public School are doing two things that are of note at the moment. Firstly, and foremost, they are getting in the way of me being number one on a search for "buster tests". Somehow.

Secondly, and far more light-heartedly, they are off doing their nice little mock-mini-elections. As usual, it was GWB v. Kerry. Guess who won! Anyone? No? Well skim down the page (right at the bottom) and see for yourself. Is it a mystical insight into the results of the USA election? Well I sure hope so.

14 Comments ~ Post a Comment

Anonymous Anonymous: And the winner... Pat Buchannan!
Um, seriously, I meant Ralph Nader.

Blogger Tatertot: Of course, us ninth-party candidates have a election to run for, too...but we don't mind mock-minis either. It's kind of hard when you started campaigning the day before yesterday.

Vote Tatertot '04. Equality for Donuts Party.

Blogger pirate_freak: Kerry is for gay marrige people, Bush is not.....that's all i have to say. KERRY!!

Anonymous Anonymous: eh, have to disagree with that conclusion there ^

Blogger Fin: Lol - Fair enough Kevin.

I have to mention that I was looking through a website which has summaries and quotes from the bible, and I found something interesting. The bible does, it's true, condemn homosexuals. But it also condemns those who use slaves equally. Did people say 'Oh, we had better not allow slaves because it's say we shouldn't in the Bible' a hundred or so years ago at the height of the British Empire and American slave usage? Nah. So why, then, on an issue like this, are people starting to really stick to the Bible?

I mean, really. Would you actually CARE if a couple of gay people got married down the road from you? I hardly care when average couples get married - it's not special for me, but it is for them.

My conclusion? Chill out. :P

Anonymous Anonymous: Hey now, let's not be reasonable; that ruins all the fun.

My guess is that a majority of people would agree with John Stuart Mill's beliefs on utilitarianism, that is, that the right course of action is that which brings the greatest benefit ("happiness") to the greatest number of people. That's reasonable, I guess, and it certainly applies in this situation.
The problem is that that type of ethical viewpoint (for all practical purposes, a "relativist" one - there isn't really a fixed set of ethical standards) can't be reconciled with an absolutist view in which certain things are right and wrong (in my case, based on the Bible) all the time. I mean, if you presuppose a God (like I do), it completely changes your line of reasoning. Do you know what I mean?
So, anyway, I think we can agree to disagree on this one. I honestly think that homosexuals are sinners in the same way everyone (hey, surprise, including me) are sinnners and my main thing is that I don't think it should be actively promoted. That's my deal.

And about the slavery thing, ouch, indeed. Although, to be honest, from my US History book I'm reading that the majority of southerners really only attended church as a tradition rather than as an active faith and, despite a brief (but weak) attempt at antidisestablishmentarianism, the church basically died out in the southern US as a major institution for quite a long time during the post-revolutionary period up through the War Between the States (or the American Civil War, whichever suits your fancy). That might explain a small part of the slave issue that you raise.
Ironically enough, though, we both probably agree that slavery's wrong, now, don't we?

No matter what, I got to write "antidisestablishmentariansm" so I'm overall pleased with this comment.

Anonymous Anonymous: Oh, and by the way, thanks for expressing your views without being biting or rude - it's nice to know that there are a lot of civil people out there still.
It's crazy, but every time I read something you write it just has this odd sound of professionalism. That's good, just relatively unusual for people our age.

Blogger Fin: Som every fair points there, Kevin. Quite an interesting read, really.

Oh and yes, I should hope that we do both think that slavery is wrong. :P

Blogger pirate_freak: gay marrige is really a huge issue for me especially, because i am a bisexual. the scenario i give people who are "anti-homosexual" is this: if gay was "right" and straight was "wrong", and you fell in love with someone of the opposite sex, and government wouldn't let you marry them, how would you feel?

Think about it, people.

Anonymous Anonymous: That's fitting with John Rawl's A Theory of Justice: specifically his concept of a "veil of ignorance."
Here is an amazingly fitting definition of the veil of ignorance (from Wikipedia):
"The veil of ignorance is a concept introduced by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely re-fashioned and redistributed, and that from behind your veil of ignorance you do not know what role you will be reassigned. Only then can you truly consider the morality of an issue. For example, whites in the pre-Civil War south did indeed condone slavery, but they most likely would not have done so had there been a re-fashioning of society because of which they would not know if they would be the ones enslaved. It is a philosophical idea related of method of two people dividing a cake: one cuts, the other chooses first (see pie method)."

But, you know, like I said: if you figure a God into the equation - and one that has absolute principles - you can't come to agree with that concept above, and your line of reasoning will be completely different. From a purely secular standpoint, what you're saying is completely logical, I give you that. It's just we have different postulates so we come to different conclusions. So we have to agree to disagree on this one, since we can't both be right and we obviously both think that our respective opinion is right.

Blogger pirate_freak: we have all these strong opinions about the elections, and yet, we are not allowed to vote! i don't get the government! but, that may just be me, because i am one of those "anti-government" people who thinks all things government are lies. like, i think the government knows that there are aliens in Area 51, but the y won't let the public know. so, basically, i hate government.

and yet, i want to register to vote??? i sometimes don't get myself, but i think i made a valid piont in my last comment. where i gave the gay and stright marrige scenario.

i also think a big factor is that i don't believ a word of the bible. now people, dont say to me, "then how did we get here?" dont say that "God" put us here, because i have heard it all before, and if someone trys to shove religion or belief down my throat, i will not be to happy. i don't like the idea of organized religion. i do not worship God, but that doesn't mean i am some kind of Satanist. i dont believe in anything the bible says. the only thing i do believe in is reincarnation.

but anyway, i could (and have) go on for hours on this topic alone. but ill save you guys the confusion. but if you want to talk about it some more, leave a comment on my blog, and will definately talk about it some more.

Blogger pirate_freak: wow....i used the word "government" a lot!

Anonymous Anonymous: Makes sense to want to vote: even more so if you don't like the government, so you can vote for someone who can change it, IMHO.

Blogger Fin: I think it's best if I don't try to answer all of the points made here as we'll probably end up with a 1000 word discursive essay on our hands (not pretty).

But it is all interesting.

Free Web Counter