After reading and commenting on the argument going on I thought it would be fund (in the spirit of lively, intelligent debate) to attempt to take a contrary position on some topics and invite you all to do the same.
I think technique is insanely useful to understanding the other side of an argument, but rarely see it implemented any longer. Rules... um, Okay... you can pick any of the many controversial topics out there that you feel strongly on. Take a position opposite of your current position and try to honestly defend that position without being sarcastic or snarky. It would also be good if you gave this some thought and didn't just parrot what you hear the other side saying. This is really only going to be fun if we get a discussion going (the challenge is not in posing a contrary position, it's in defending it). Okay... lemme see. President Bush is taking on many large issues (perhaps even more than he should). However this is because he fears that these issues will be ignored if not forced onto the radar has they have been for many years. He may fail in his endeavors but he has the balls to make the attempt unlike our last president. Truly what permanent, or even positive, effect did the Clinton administration have on this country? Social Security is broken - it won't survive much longer and minor tweaks will only delay the inevitable (and not for long at that). Embryos are people. Their lack of definition, capability or communication makes them no less. They contain everything that makes a person a person and simply need the chance to grow. An infant can't speak; does that make them less a person? A toddler can't drive; does that make them less a member of society? >From the moment of conception a person has the potential to do all those things and more - thus the destruction of an embryo should be treated with the same revulsion as the murder of anybody - perhaps more so when you consider the tragic loss of what could have been a long, productive life. Global warming is a liberal PR phrase - the science of it is much more complex and not understood completely at all. It's clearly obvious that the global climate has changed radically (and quickly) in the past with no meddling from humans. While I'll concede that humans may play a role in climate change it's foolhardy to attempt to fix a problem that's not completely understood. At best you risk spending billions, if not trillions of dollars on solutions that do nothing or seemingly affect the symptoms but not the cause. At worst your "solutions" cause more damage than ever like a hypochondriac self-medicating themselves into a coma. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get Instant Hacker Protection, Virus Detection, Antispam & Personal Firewall. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=62 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:162706 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
