| Author |
Message |
Dirt
Exercise Boy
Joined: 19 May 2003
Posts: 2086
Location: a tree
|
 Tue Dec 19, 2006 6:30 pm |
|
What's that like? I can't really imagine it in my head.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Mar 03, 2007 12:44 pm |
|
This is amazing, people! After three years of continuous losses I finally won at my Speech and Debate tournament last night. And this wasn't just any tournament. This was state quals!
I qualified for State for Speech and Debate!  I'm going to State!!!!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:12 pm |
|
Congrats!
What exactly was it that you were debating?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:45 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | Congrats!
What exactly was it that you were debating? |
Thank you, my friend!
I wasn't debating, actually. I don't do debate. I do speech, original oratory. My speech is about how moral relativism - the idea that everyone can determine for themselves what's morally right and morally wrong on every issue - is wrong and how society needs some limits - some constants - if it is to have the stability and unification it needs in order to function. I think I'll post it on here later. It's a good speech and clearly I give it well, lol.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sat Mar 03, 2007 4:11 pm |
|
Sounds like I would have enjoyed it immensely  .
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sat Mar 03, 2007 10:18 pm |
|
Congratulations. Very nifty.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:16 pm |
|
Congrats, RM! Sounds rivetting! Did they cling to your every word? 
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sun Mar 04, 2007 3:13 pm |
|
Congrats RM
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Mar 04, 2007 4:53 pm |
|
| Valathous wrote: | | Congrats, RM! Sounds rivetting! Did they cling to your every word? |
Some were re-reading their speeches, but generally, yes, it's very enticing, lol.
Thanks everyone!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Mar 16, 2007 12:30 am |
|
I decided to post the script of the speech for which I am going to State tomorrow and Saturday. I must state that it is much better when I give it than simply reading it, but at least you can get an idea for what I address. Note that this speech is sourced everywhere it would appear to be necessary, whether it be news articles or the law of a given country itself. And I was sure to maintain accuracy throughout the speech. It's a pity I can't give it for you all because the effect is most certainly different, but I hope you find it interesting and well-worth reading, nonetheless.
See you all Saturday! 
| Quote: | Moral Relativism: Speech
by Republican_Man
Society stands at the crossroads of two possible futures. One is a morally relativist society where everyone can decide for themselves what�s morally right and morally wrong; the other is a society with some moral constancy. Which would you choose?
I want you to imagine that you�re the parent of an adorable six-year-old girl, a little girl like any other little girl�cute, fun, excitable, full of life. And you and your spouse, you�re pretty poor, so you have to work quite a bit, including on Sundays. In need of a babysitter, you call upon the services of an old high school friend of yours named Mark. Mark accepts and ends up babysitting your daughter for pretty much every Sunday over the next four years. Yet over this period of four years you notice a considerable decline in the mental health of your daughter. She�s not the girl she once was�she�s not what you would expect out of a ten-year-old girl. And the reason for this, you�re horrified to find out, is that Mark, the man you trusted to watch and protect your daughter, had repeatedly raped and sodomized your little girl.
Outraged, you take the matter to the police, it goes to the court, and eventually the sentence comes down. You�re expecting something big, something just, and it�s...60 day in jail, followed by treatment and probation.
Now for you this is a hypothetical scenario, but for one Vermont family this was reality. Judge Edward Cashman gave child rapist Mark Hulett a mere sixty days in jail for the exact crime I described to you, only to increase it to three years after major national uproar.
Here the life of an innocent little girl was ruined, horribly ruined in the worst of ways, her innocence stripped away by brute force, never to return again. And the man responsible, by all accounts, got off. So what the hell is up with Judge Cashman? Well, what�s up with Judge Cashman is that he has a belief common amongst moral relativists known as �restorative justice.�
Moral relativism is a philosophy espoused by a great number of Europeans. According to a Russian public opinion and market research group, Romir, Europeans believe that �there are no absolutely unambiguous rules on what is good and evil that apply to everyone, irrespective of the circumstances.�
This description of Europeans is perhaps the best description of moral relativists possible, for they do not believe that any universal moral standards can, or should, be made to apply to anyone and everyone. In essence they believe that morality is relative to the individual.
Moral relativism, first of all, relates to restorative justice in the sense that, restorative justice is the belief that, in order to achieve �true justice,� the interests of the criminal must be thoroughly considered by society. Yet what about the rights of the little girl who was molested? Weren�t her rights violated? How was this justice for her?
Well, in the mind of a restorative justice-believer, this was justice, because that�s what justice is. To them, not only is the victim of a crime a victim, but the criminal is a victim as well. Judge Cashman believed that Mark Hulett was the victim of an illness for which he must be treated, not condemned and punished. And moral relativism enables this philosophy in the courts in two ways. First, in their belief, we�re not allowed to pass any moral judgments on human behavior, including child rape. He had the urge and opportunity, didn�t think it was wrong, and acted upon it. Who are we to say that there was anything wrong with that? Second, they believe that if in the moral core of a judge he believes that the appropriate response to a crime, no matter how heinous, is restorative justice, then he should be able to make that decision. Yet I ask you: where are the limits? 60 day for 4 years? What about 30 days for 2 years? 15 days for 1 year? How low could we go?
Now let�s take a look at the issue of sex amongst the youth. Moral relativists believe that there should be no moral judgments made on whether or not young people engage in sexual activity. For instance, in the moral relativist-dominated state of the Netherlands, the sex consent age is twelve! In Canada it�s fourteen. This is even with adults, and that�s why NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, has moved to Canada.
Question: do you believe it�s morally acceptable for grown men to engage in sexual relations with young boys? NAMBLA does, 5 and in the mind of a moral relativist, if NAMBLA believes it�s morally acceptable, then NAMBLA should be able to act upon their beliefs. Who cares what everybody else says?
Now let�s examine the issue of sex education in schools. Moral relativists tend to believe that teenagers are gonna have sex anyways, so not only should we teach them about contraceptives, but we should give them the means. In other words, nurses and sex ed teachers should distribute condoms and other contraceptives directly to the students so that they may engage in �safe sexual practices.� Yet I ask you once again: where are the limits?
I have an idea. Why don�t we put bedrooms in the schools? Not for sleeping, but for sex. We could have an instance where a student�s like, �Teacher, my girlfriend and I wanna go have sex right now.� �Alright student,� the teacher responds. �Just be back as quick as possible. We�ve got to continue with the lesson. And here�s a condom. Be sure to put it on to protect yourself.� �Alright, thanks teacher.�
Ridiculous, ludicrous? Perhaps. But isn�t this the logical extension of such a philosophy? Here the teacher not only didn�t pass judgment on what the kids wanted to do, but he ensured that they engaged in the practice �safely,� something that might not otherwise happen if they did it elsewhere, because, after all, they were gonna have sex anyways. This is exactly what the moral relativists believe and would find acceptable.
Now, if you think this is entirely illogical in the school setting, think again. For instance, a few years back the Los Angeles County Palmdale School District distributed a so-called �educational� survey to kids ages 7 to 10 in which they were asked to rate how often they experienced the following thoughts or emotions:
Touching my private parts too much
Thinking about having sex
Thinking about touching other people�s private parts
Thinking about sex when I don�t want to
Washing myself because I feel dirty inside
Bear in mind that these kids were as young as seven years old and they were being given a sex survey!? I bet you all the money in the world that the vast majority of these kids had no idea what the heck sex is. Teacher, what�s sex? Teacher, what does it mean to feel dirty inside? These kids were as young as seven years old and they were asked these questions. What possible purpose could it serve?
Well, moral relativists want a society in which there are no moral judgments made on human behavior, sexual or otherwise. And in order to achieve this, society has to be accepting of unconventional beliefs regarding sexuality and other realms of morality. And the best way to do this is to target the kids, because they�re impressionable, and if you subject kids to these ideas at younger ages then chances are they will be more inclined to accept alternative thoughts on these issues when they�re older. So they want kids to be subjected to these ideas, and they even want to take it a step further. You see, what they envision is a brave new world.
Aldous Huxley�s novel Brave New World portrays a society in which it is not only morally acceptable, but it is commonplace for kids as young as six years old to engage in sexual activity. Moral relativists view this society as a utopia because it is a society in which there are no limits�no moral boundaries on human behavior. The problem stemming from this lack of limits is the very thing Aldous Huxley was warning us about. Even in the 1930s he noticed the direction to which society was going, a society which we are now fastly approaching. He was warning us of a society with no moral boundaries.
And so the answer to the question �Where are the limits?� is that, with moral relativism there are none. Yet without limits�without constants�society cannot have the stability and unification it needs in order to function effectively, if at all. Without limits�without constants�you essentially have anarchy. This is what the moral relativists want, and so they could essentially be called moral anarchists, yet society cannot sustain itself in a state of anarchy.
Now, I don�t want to come off as some sort of moral absolutist who believes that every moral issue should have one constant in the universe. That�s not what I�m saying here. What I am saying, however, is that there needs to be some limits, some constants�some consensus around which all of society can form if it is to function.
The stakes here are high. They involve the human rights of young children � should we value the rights of the child rapist over those of the child who was raped? They involve the sexualization of youth at younger ages � should we subject kids to these ideas at younger and younger ages? The stakes involve the very presence of morality in American society. If we allow the Moral Relativists to succeed, then we will enter a brave new world, the very society Aldous Huxley was warning us about. And so I urge you to think hard upon what I�ve said, to take a position, and, I hope, fight for the side of moral traditionalists, those opposed to moral relativism. The stakes are just too great to stay on the sidelines. Thank you. |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:52 pm |
|
I am too tired to read it all, but I glanced through it, and I definately like it .
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Sat Mar 17, 2007 3:54 pm |
|
I would like to point out that in Canada the age of consent is 14 among children within, I think, 2 or 3 years age of each other.
16 and 14 is ok. 17 and 15, 18 and 16, 19 and 17, etc. or if it's 3 years, I'm sure you're capable of altering that scale. But 40 and 14 is considered statutory rape. As far as I'm aware, anyways.
I do agree with you on the case of Mark Hulett. That's just wrong and the judge should be ashamed.
For the other part? Teenagers will be teenagers and there's pretty much nothing you can do about it. And frankley, it's their choice. At that age they know what they're doing.
And the third section about questioning 7 year olds? Yes, that is just silly, IMO. Ask people in the age range of 13-16, instead.
Very well written, though. Besides the fact I didn't agree with some of your opinions, it was a very good essay.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:03 pm |
|
| Quote: | I would like to point out that in Canada the age of consent is 14 among children within, I think, 2 or 3 years age of each other.
16 and 14 is ok. 17 and 15, 18 and 16, 19 and 17, etc. or if it's 3 years, I'm sure you're capable of altering that scale. But 40 and 14 is considered statutory rape. As far as I'm aware, anyways. |
Actually, that is incorrect. I thoroughly researched it to be sure, and here's a summary I found [url=http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/prb993-e.htm#CURRENT%20LAW(txt)]here[/url] which summarizes the current law in Canada:
| Quote: | | The Criminal Code does not now criminalize consensual sexual activity with or between persons 14 or over, unless it takes place in a relationship of trust or dependency, in which case sexual activity with persons over 14 but under 18 can constitute an offence, notwithstanding their consent. Even consensual activity with those under 14 but over 12 may not be an offence if the accused is under 16 and less than two years older than the complainant. The exception, of course, is anal intercourse, to which unmarried persons under 18 cannot legally consent, although both the Ontario Court of Appeal(3) and the Quebec Court of Appeal(4) have struck down the relevant section of the Criminal Code. |
So if it were with a parent or a teacher or some other example correlating with trust or dependency, it's illegal. Some other adult individual? It's legal so long as there is consent.
| Quote: | | Very well written, though. Besides the fact I didn't agree with some of your opinions, it was a very good essay. |
Thanks, and I figured you'd come out a certain way on some of the things I addressed But just "silly" for asking those questions to kids age 7? "Silly" is far from the appropriate description, my friend
Btw, it's a speech, not an essay 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:10 pm |
|
| Puck wrote: | | I am too tired to read it all, but I glanced through it, and I definately like it . |
lol, thanks, Kevin! I knew you would!
I just got back a little bit ago, and personally, I thought I did pretty well � at least for my second round yesterday and third round, which was today. I thought I did the best for my second round, though, which was yesterday. However, the competition was fierce (State and Nationals are incredibly (and equally) competitive), and I placed 4th in all three rounds (one person places 1st, another 2nd, and another 3rd; the rest get 4th). My coach told me, however, that others had gotten firsts and seconds at all sorts of local tournaments and ended up the same as me, which makes me feel a bit better.
So I didn�t get to semifinals, which sucks, but neither did this one opponent of mine (an opponent of mine during my round today), who spoke on Darfur. I was surprised about that because I thought he did quite well, and he made three people cry, from my understanding. Yesterday was lots of fun, though; the tournament went well, I had lunch with two of my cousins; those two cousins and the father-in-law of one of them watched me present my second round speech; I had a good round there (at least, in my opinion); and the night went pretty well, though I was bored and alone in the hotel room for roughly two hours at one point (but I put that time to good use by watching the Factor and Hannity and Colmes ). Today was pretty boring, but it went okay.
Anyway, that's State in a nutshell, lol.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:26 am |
|
I'm finally taking my driver's license test in an hour and a half...
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
squiggy
Stooge Two
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3007
Location: Messing with the fabric of Video Game realities. I'll summon Shiva on you! I SWEAR!
|
| Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:42 am |
|
Good luck dude
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:08 pm |
|
You'll do fine, but good luck
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:20 pm |
|
Thanks a bunch. I did, indeed, pass! And not only that, but she said I did very well and that I was one of her best - and sincerely, too (I could tell). She only had one critique, and that was that, as I was leaving the school as we began the test, I went over the white line, lol.
So I might go to the DMV tomorrow and give them the paperwork and by next week I'll be a licensed driver!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Valathous
The Canadian, eh
Joined: 31 Aug 2002
Posts: 19074
Location: Centre Bell
|
| Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:25 pm |
|
... Keep your children indoors! The roads will never be safe again,
Congrats, RM!
|
|
|
squiggy
Stooge Two
Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 3007
Location: Messing with the fabric of Video Game realities. I'll summon Shiva on you! I SWEAR!
|
| Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:13 pm |
|
Oh god no! On behalf of everyone with a cane everywhere, may I be first to say "Don't hit me you @#&!". 
|
|
|
TrekkieMage
Office Junkie
Joined: 17 Oct 2004
Posts: 5335
Location: Hiding
|
| Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:38 pm |
|
Seriously, congrats!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:14 pm |
|
So...Guess who can drive now?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Tue Apr 17, 2007 7:22 pm |
|
Yay RM and his lisence!
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Wed Apr 18, 2007 12:39 am |
|
| Arellia wrote: | | Yay RM and his lisence! |
You keep getting the "c" and "s" mixed around, you know
So I drove myself to and from Confirmation class tonight, and I didn't total my dad's car in the process It was kinda fun, I gotta say
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Lord Borg
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 27 May 2003
Posts: 11214
Location: Vulcan Capital City, Vulcan
|
| Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:33 am |
|
Congrats, RM.
HEH...someplaces spell License differntly, RM .
-------signature-------
When you cried I'd wipe away all of your tears
When you'd scream I'd fight away all of your fears
And I held your hand through all of these years
But you still have
All of me
|
|
|
|
| stv-archives.com Forum Index -> This is me ... |
Goto Page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Next |
|
 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
