interesting. I may try this, but not today, knee-deep in domestic chores. Dana
On 7/2/05, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:162712 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
