How have your views changed since joining NS?

[Genivaria]

What does dependence have to do with anything?

And 18 is adulthood (in the US), so denying the right for adult citizens to vote is actually a form of disenfranchisement.

Well, to be fair, any form of restricted right to exercise the franchise is disenfranchisement. In the case of the United States, this not only includes the under 18 population, but also the felon population as well. Both of which constitute a significant percentage of the population whole.

Yeah I also don't approve of former inmates being disenfranchised.
They paid their dues, so why the permanent punishment?

[Distruzio]

Well, to be fair, any form of restricted right to exercise the franchise is disenfranchisement. In the case of the United States, this not only includes the under 18 population, but also the felon population as well. Both of which constitute a significant percentage of the population whole.

Yeah I also don't approve of former inmates being disenfranchised.
They paid their dues, so why the permanent punishment?

Because it's inconvenient to actually believe in democratic freedom for most Americans.... which has been a hallmark of our "great" nation since it's inception. So much so that the very notion of "freedom" is quite ambiguous to nearly every single voter I've ever come across. Especially when I was a politician in the GOP (of course, that might've been because of my target polity )

[Lalaki]

Well, to be fair, any form of restricted right to exercise the franchise is disenfranchisement. In the case of the United States, this not only includes the under 18 population, but also the felon population as well. Both of which constitute a significant percentage of the population whole.

Yeah I also don't approve of former inmates being disenfranchised.
They paid their dues, so why the permanent punishment?

"Men like you can never change."

People, and society as a whole, tend to believe that criminals can never change their ways. This makes life very hard for good people who made mistakes in the past.

[Lalaki]

Update: I'm becoming more anti-atheist as these edgy teenagers on the forums start to insult the idea of there being a higher power, even if it just created the universe.

So, because one doesn't believe in God, they're edgy teenagers?

I don't think that's what he meant.

Remember, many anti-theists (to be distinguished from respectful atheists and agnostics) would say "I'm becoming more anti-theist and militant atheist as these religious fundamentalists on the forums..."

Same concept, different ideology.

For the record, I'm an irreligious agnostic.

[Korouse]

So, because one doesn't believe in God, they're edgy teenagers?

I don't think that's what he meant.

Remember, many anti-theists (to be distinguished from respectful atheists and agnostics) would say "I'm becoming more anti-theist and militant atheist as these religious fundamentalists on the forums..."

Same concept, different ideology.

For the record, I'm an irreligious agnostic.

It just seems like every single fucking one is anti-theist and disrespectful.

[Korouse]

Yeah I also don't approve of former inmates being disenfranchised.
They paid their dues, so why the permanent punishment?

"Men like you can never change."

People, and society as a whole, tend to believe that criminals can never change their ways. This makes life very hard for good people who made mistakes in the past.

Society Vs. Small Minority... Hmmm

[Geilinor]

"Men like you can never change."

People, and society as a whole, tend to believe that criminals can never change their ways. This makes life very hard for good people who made mistakes in the past.

Society Vs. Small Minority... Hmmm

Allowing former inmates to vote will not harm society. They already paid their debt to society.

[Tokau]

Well, I now recognize Kosovo as a nation.

[The Orson Empire]

I've lefted up a bit. I used to be more pro-life, and apathetic to LGBT rights. I was also pretty strongly in favor of decreasing welfare and social programs.

Now I'm much more moderate in some areas, my economic views are more Centre-Right than Right, and I'm much more supportive of LGBT rights, and more oriented towards choice than not. And a lot less reactionary.

Basically I came to my senses.

Yep, that is what Nationstates does to you.

I used to be a fundamentalist Christian. Now, my political views have shifted to the left, and I am an Old Earth Creationist.

[Rob Halfordia]

I'm simply confused now.

[Korouse]

Society Vs. Small Minority... Hmmm

Allowing former inmates to vote will not harm society. They already paid their debt to society.

It doesn't harm society but it's pretty fucking unfair if you're a law-abiding citizen and a guy who killed his child get's the same rights as you.

[Othelos]

Allowing former inmates to vote will not harm society. They already paid their debt to society.

It doesn't harm society but it's pretty fucking unfair if you're a law-abiding citizen and a guy who killed his child get's the same rights as you.

Your emotions don't enter into the debate. He's an adult citizen, so he shouldn't be disenfranchised.

[Korouse]

It doesn't harm society but it's pretty fucking unfair if you're a law-abiding citizen and a guy who killed his child get's the same rights as you.

Your emotions don't enter into the debate. He's an adult citizen, so he shouldn't be disenfranchised.

Yet, your arguments are that he/she has paid their dues to society? I'm sure society determines what dues they have, and the majority say disenfranchisement.

[Othelos]

Your emotions don't enter into the debate. He's an adult citizen, so he shouldn't be disenfranchised.

Yet, your arguments are that he/she has paid their dues to society? I'm sure society determines what dues they have, and the majority say disenfranchisement.

1. There's zero logical reason to disenfranchise criminals.
2. Disenfranchising a group is a form of discrimination.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Yet, your arguments are that he/she has paid their dues to society? I'm sure society determines what dues they have, and the majority say disenfranchisement.

1. There's zero logical reason to disenfranchise criminals.
2. Disenfranchising a group is a form of discrimination.

1. Actually, one could say that criminals, via their actions, have displayed an anti-social attitude that would have dangerous consequences were it allowed to be expressed via a vote

Within that logical setup, disenfranchising criminals is quite logical. Whether the logic is sound could be argued, but it is logical.

[Lalaki]

1. There's zero logical reason to disenfranchise criminals.
2. Disenfranchising a group is a form of discrimination.

1. Actually, one could say that criminals, via their actions, have displayed an anti-social attitude that would have dangerous consequences were it allowed to be expressed via a vote

That disregards the fact that many people can change. In fact, some people revert back to crime precisely because society won't accept them back.

[The Orson Empire]

Allowing former inmates to vote will not harm society. They already paid their debt to society.

It doesn't harm society but it's pretty fucking unfair if you're a law-abiding citizen and a guy who killed his child get's the same rights as you.

You are using your emotions to guide your opinions, and not logic.

The way you feel about the criminal is irrelevant.

[Quilavaland]

The Bible can't be true because the Bible claims that souls suffer in hell, however part of the brain is necessary to feel pain, and some people who do have souls do not have that part of the brain, therefore souls suffering in hell is impossible therefore the Bible and the God of the Bible are false.

"some people who do have souls" asserts that there are also some people who "feel pain, but do not have souls" which is impossible: since that person would be braindead, and therefore incapable of feeling pain. All humans have souls according to christian theology: the soulless human cannot exist, because that would mean damnation from birth. One must have a soul so that one can be judged after death. Souls that may receive grace are, for example, someone who's braindead. That is, if the person was a good wholesome Christian and not a thug who got shot by police after a wild mall rampage. The soul of someone braindead is intact, but the body (which includes the mind) has ceased to function correctly. Whether or not the body functions correctly is irrelevant: soul and body are two seperate things. The soul is contained within the body until death: then it's up to God to judge whether a soul is worthy of entering heaven or enjoying hellish bbq.

If you'd rephrase your kinda silly proposition, then it'd fall flat from the get-go. And the Bible doesn't lay claim to anything, and why should it? It's the Word of God that is being revealed to the reader as an absolute truth. It claims nothing, it just tells the reader a bunch of set-in-stone truths. Anyways... "The Bible can't be true because the Bible says that damned souls suffer in hell. However, part of the brain is necessary to feel pain doesn't always function correctly. Some people, all of whom have souls, do not have that part of the brain. But they enter heaven or hell as a soul, not a body, and have abandoned their ill-functioning brain." The rest is just plain wrong. Soul =/= brain. There goes your theory.

You still haven't fixed the issue. To feel pain you need a brain, a soul alone cannot feel pain. So hell ain't gonna do shit.

[Shaggai]

"some people who do have souls" asserts that there are also some people who "feel pain, but do not have souls" which is impossible: since that person would be braindead, and therefore incapable of feeling pain. All humans have souls according to christian theology: the soulless human cannot exist, because that would mean damnation from birth. One must have a soul so that one can be judged after death. Souls that may receive grace are, for example, someone who's braindead. That is, if the person was a good wholesome Christian and not a thug who got shot by police after a wild mall rampage. The soul of someone braindead is intact, but the body (which includes the mind) has ceased to function correctly. Whether or not the body functions correctly is irrelevant: soul and body are two seperate things. The soul is contained within the body until death: then it's up to God to judge whether a soul is worthy of entering heaven or enjoying hellish bbq.

If you'd rephrase your kinda silly proposition, then it'd fall flat from the get-go. And the Bible doesn't lay claim to anything, and why should it? It's the Word of God that is being revealed to the reader as an absolute truth. It claims nothing, it just tells the reader a bunch of set-in-stone truths. Anyways... "The Bible can't be true because the Bible says that damned souls suffer in hell. However, part of the brain is necessary to feel pain doesn't always function correctly. Some people, all of whom have souls, do not have that part of the brain. But they enter heaven or hell as a soul, not a body, and have abandoned their ill-functioning brain." The rest is just plain wrong. Soul =/= brain. There goes your theory.

You still haven't fixed the issue. To feel pain you need a brain, a soul alone cannot feel pain. So hell ain't gonna do shit.

You're assuming that the soul and brain are two entirely separate entities.

[Camicon]

You still haven't fixed the issue. To feel pain you need a brain, a soul alone cannot feel pain. So hell ain't gonna do shit.

You're assuming that the soul and brain are two entirely separate entities.

You're assuming that the soul is a thing in the first place.

[Crysuko]

You're assuming that the soul and brain are two entirely separate entities.

You're assuming that the soul is a thing in the first place.

depends, really. Definitions seem to vary

[Shaggai]

You're assuming that the soul and brain are two entirely separate entities.

You're assuming that the soul is a thing in the first place.

The question (would a soul feel pain in hell?) implies that there is a soul. Therefore, to dismiss the existence of the soul in the context of that question is absurd. It's like saying "Harry Potter isn't a wizard, because he doesn't exist."

[Genivaria]

Your emotions don't enter into the debate. He's an adult citizen, so he shouldn't be disenfranchised.

Yet, your arguments are that he/she has paid their dues to society? I'm sure society determines what dues they have, and the majority say disenfranchisement.

The number of years served in prison.

[Lalaki]

Yet, your arguments are that he/she has paid their dues to society? I'm sure society determines what dues they have, and the majority say disenfranchisement.

The number of years served in prison.

True. Unfortunately, we have a very strict and almost oppressive view of parole. What is meant to be a reasonable transition period from prison to civilian life with oversight from the authorities, turns into a lifelong tyranny that can cause the person to revert back to crime.

[Calorax]

I guess I've become more moderate due to seeing how obnoxious people who take hardline views can be, especially when it comes to religion

I used to be a pretty firm atheist, but I consider myself to be agnostic now