User talk:Wejer

Feel free to leave a message. Wejer   15:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Lately, the discussions on the talk page have taken the turn of debates. It was not intended for philosophical issues to become victims of some ruthless sport. To counter this, I have devised a set of guidelines for everyone to follow:

Wejer   10:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks - even for the sake of winning an argument, this will be frowned upon at all times.
 * Keep an open mind - remember, you have two ears but only one mouth.
 * Avoid logical fallacies - Read me!

Welcome!
Hi Wejer, please remember to follow these steps when updating an item's price in the Grand Exchange Market Watch.

To UPDATE the market price of this item in the Grand Exchange Market Watch:


 * 1) Move the value from Price to Last.
 * 2) Move the value in Date to LastDate.
 * 3) Add the current market price to Price (Without commas; i.e. 42000, not 42,000).
 * 4) Add 5 tildes  to Date to add the current time/date.
 * 5) Click Save page.

If you have any more questions, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! =) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism found
Hi there. Well what that vandal did (I've reverted their edits and reported them to the Counter Vandalism Unit) was go to the Exchange:Ruined_dragon_armour_lump article and edited the price so it would say "free if you like men". The way to revert this is to go to that article and click "undo" (or, if you have rollback rights you simply click "rollback") and then you undo their changes. This would not have worked as well in this case, however, because the IP had edited twice, which means rollback rights would have helped greatly in this situation. However, if you go to the revision before the vandalism started and select all of the text and right click "copy" then delete all of the text on the current revision and select "paste", you can then remove the vandalism. Thanks for notifying us of the vandalism in progress, however next time, please try to use the actual form, not the talk page. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Proposal
You most certainly may label me as a fellow Libertarian, you may also be interested in seeing if Rendova is interested, he's a Paulite himself.-- 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "foreign aid is counter-productive, because the money will most likely down the dictator's pockets; also, building schools and hospitals is equally wrong, because it just frees up money for the dictator to spend on secret police and armed forces." - I have to sortof disagree with this. I like the idea of volunteer and charity hospitals, perhaps merely checked up on, but not policed, maintained, or otherwise controlled, by their own government (the contributors, that is). I say this because if the need for hospitals is so great, the dictator would likely already be putting minimal or no money into it to begin with. Of course this would have to be looked at differently, since in all probability each situation would be different and thus would need to be looked at and treated differently.

Also you didn't mention anything on abortion or gay rights :d. I'd be interested in your thoughts on those. ahh and the political compass puts me at (1,-2) on the scale. I guess I do have a few commie views :p 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

-You, a commie? You haven't been to my country I presume (Sweden), cause here the communists have their own legitimate party, and are present in our parliament. You would have a very big hassle fitting in with your own, moderate views.

About foreign aid: yes, it is true dictators don't spend much money on public services, regardless if they are right or left-winged. However, they always spend a certain, small amount to keep the population content. Cuba is quite a good example of this; the people go to school a couple of years, so that they can learn to read. But what is there to read? Because there is no free (private) media, the only thing they have acces to is their propaganda newspaper! Will they get an accurate view on the world that way? I have to disagree.

Although it is true that all countries are not so miserable as communist cuba is at the moment, we should always excercise caution when giving foreign aid. It is primarily a country's own responsability, not ours. What we shall provide for them is REAL free trade and COMPLETLY free immigration, which will have a lot more impact on other countries standrard of living than any amount of charity money would do.

Of course, you can't prevent charity anyway, because people do whatever they like with their money. Still, charity money is better than welfare taxation, because the first one is voluntary while the second is not (you may be put into prison for not paying your taxes).

I cannot stop people from giving money though, I can only warn them to be cautious. Wejer   08:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes I forgot, I will put my views on gay rights, abortion and similar issues. Keep the suggestions coming! Wejer   08:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the updates. I'm very strongly pro life and don't think people are born gay (although I can understand getting gay "vibes" if you know what I mean :| ), especially by way of natural selection. Homosexuals don't have kids, so even if there was a certain "gay" gene, it wouldn't be able to get passed on to the next generation. And I think government should continue to fund research on the most important things, at least for the time being. I don't think we should just throw on the brakes, but we shouldn't quite keep going as we are now. Other than that, I'm mostly with you :p 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point there that gay people aren't motivated to pass on their genes, because that is a choice they have made. However, natural selection does not only occur between iduvidual and induvidual; if you work together as a group, you can sometimes accomplish more than you can on your own. I believe it is called "altruism". Take ants for example; their workers are sterile. They do not help spread the queen ant's genes in a very direct way. However, they have had other functions, such as food gathering for example, which indirectly help the queen survive and help pass on her genes that way.

I think that gay people have had a function when mankind needed to survive as cavemen and beyond. Perhaps a similar one to ants, or perhaps not; although, to be honest I am not exactly sure, as I lack constructive proof for my claims.

To a different point; you say you are "pro-life". Does that mean you are against abortion? Or perhaps the death penalty? I would like to hear your thoughts on this one. I would also be interested knowing what you mean by "fund(ing) research on the most important things". What is important to you? <font color="White">Wejer   20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm against both capital punishment and abortion. Abortion because I personally believe life begins the moment sperm meets egg, and I believe all life is sacred, and likewise I'm against the death penalty because, also, all life is sacred and no human should have the right to take another person's life unless they're going to prevent them from hurting or killing someone else and there are no other options. The only exception I would make on abortion is when the mother's life is in jeopardy, and even then I would, naturally, make the abortion optional.


 * I maintain my position on homosexuality :P. Like I told the board of review a couple weeks ago when I was moving up a rank in boy scouts, "As a Christian I see homosexuality as wrong. As an American I believe we should have the right to live our personal lives the way we want." 05:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

edit I forgot to mention what I meant by "important" research. By that I mean we should help fund (even if only slightly) research into HIV/AIDS, space exploration (only for the time being, since private groups are only starting to take interest in the field), the possible causes, results, and even existence of global warming/cooling, etc. A thought I had pertaining to this was, perhaps, keep a low federal income tax and give discounts (maybe leading up to 100%?) according to donations to charity and/or research groups. I haven't put very much thought into that though. Too much happening in my personal life to worry about politics lately :s 05:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, especially your stance on the death penalty. Some pro-life christians would contrary to you claim that the death penalty should be an option against murderers and rapists, because they have "ruined" life that they hold sacred. I am glad that you have kept your head cool on this topic, since killing another human being, even if it is a criminal, is such a big waste.

I respect your standing on homosexualtiy but must however object. If you think gay people are "wrong" (even if someone proved that they were not born gay, and that it was a free choice), what should the punishment be? Wouldn't it be a logical (but scary) next step to actually criminalise gay people? Maybe force them to wear little pink triangles on their arms? That's what Hitler did in Nazi germany.

I realise from our discussions that you are not a fascist, and you would probably be horrified to be associated with them. Therefore I implore you to think again on this topic; just because the Bible is holy to you, it doesn't mean it is a good guide for modern society, because some sections were written more than 2000 years ago! Even if your God had good intentions when he gave its authors divine inspiration to write it down, the fact remains that the text was specifically written for people of another age and society, who had very little of the liberty we enjoy today.

To something else: you have come up with some good topics that could be classified as "important", and mostly I agree. However, there is acutally little need for them to be funded by taxpayers, as they can all be taken care off by charities, if they grow big enough. What keeps us from having space exploration foundation? Or a global warming foundation? Right now, government funding have led to environmentalists screaming after taxpayer's money, when they should instead look for people who would voluntarily part with their money. That way, everyone becomes happy.

In fact, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have multiple projects that together add up to tens of BILLIONS of dollars every year. One of these projects include research on combating and possibly curing HIV/AIDS.

Link: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/public/media/annualreports/annualreport07/AR2007Statements.html

I think we should encourage more people like Bill Gates to contribute to charity because 1. they have extensive experience of handling finances (unlike government bureaucrats) and 2. they have A LOT of money they like to spend on a good cause, 'nuff said.

How would you encourage charity? As you said a 100% discount is a very good action. More long-term however we should focus on improving people wealth. Note that I do not say 'income', because a good income is no good for charities if you also have large expenses, since there is no spare cash to give to the needy. What I would propose is not only to lower taxes, but also to discourage loaning. That way we will slowly but surely create a good climate for good-will and charity.

By the way, what is your stance on embryo stem cells and animal testing? Is it a worthy goal to inflict pain and death on 'lower beings' to only possibly gain data that help us to save human lives? Where your pro-life loyalties lie here I would be interested to know. <font color="White">Wejer   10:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose I should clarify. I see homosexuality as wrong (sin would be more specific) since we're told (and I believe) that God dwells within us and we need to respect ourselves as such. I'm not saying we need to burn all homosexuals at the stake - I didn't mean to come across that way. In fact I believe they should have equal rights as everyone else. I know a few people through the independent study program I'm in who are gay and found out I'm a Christian. This was in the days just after prop 8 banned gay marriage in California (my state). They assumed I was one of those extreme "bigoted" people and have been harassing me ever since. I still know what they were like before they decided I was a Nazi, so I can see things from their point of view, to some extent.


 * When it comes to tackling gay rights, though, I'm still partially torn. On one hand I think it should be legal for everyone throughout the country. On the other hand, I have different fingers...I mean, on the other hand, I realize that many people are very uncomfortable with a gay society and I can empathize with them, so I sometimes think about making it a state issue. I also don't think we should just submerge ourselves in gay rights legislation. It's more of a gut feeling, though. What I mean is we shouldn't just cannonball into the deep end; we need to start out slowly and work up to total submersion (within half/all of a decade, I suppose).


 * My thoughts are similar with government research. We should cut it completely (or almost completely), but not overnight. Perhaps the government ought to begin projects that could be used by private industry. I know the Japanese have invested in further research toward material durable enough to support a space elevator. If they succeed, we could follow in their footsteps, and if we have a couple elevators up then we've bypassed the vastly most expensive part of space missions: escaping earth's gravity. After Uncle Sam has finished it/them, he can sell them off to private industry to do with them what they will.


 * I can't really speak for animal testing since I know so little about the processes involving it. My broad beliefs are that it's alright so long as the cause is reasonable, the animals are treated respectfully (clean cages, good food, some love and fun), and if the animal's death is required for the research, let it be quick and painless. i.e. put something in the food that will put them to sleep and cause them to pass away while at rest.


 * And as for embryonic stem cell research... I really don't know anything on the subject, so I can't take a stance. Sorry :( 21:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost forgot, I actually intended to make the Die n00b picture look like the famous Che Guevara one XD. And yep, I've watched your talk page. :P 22:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry for trying out that 'guilt by association' argument when it came to gay rights, it was not very nice. I guess I got a little worked up... I know you are a nice guy and not very radical. I still however can't see why you see something as (in my point of view) trivial as sexual orientations as sin, just because a 2000-year old book said so. I guess that proves what makes an atheist like me confused...

When it comes to any form of government spending, I would like to hurry slowly, in a pace that people can manage and feel comfortable with. Revolution is out of the question, I am almost shivering at the thought. We need to win people's whole hearted support in order to fully implement the increased liberty our societies so dearly needs.

Oh yes, you wanted some more information about animal testing and stem cells? Feel free to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell_controversy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing#Ethics

<font color="White">Wejer   08:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll be sure to read those in the morning after I get up, since I've been stuck pking for the last 4 hours.. without watching the clock... crap. I agree entirely that we shouldn't do anything too drastic too fast, both with spending increases as well as decreases. I believe a revolution is at hand, at least for the United States (you aren't American are you? I'm just guessing by the times you're active :P) although I think it will/should be more of an intellectual and nonviolent political revolution. Although Ron Paul is inching his way into the spotlight, I don't think he's going to last long, considering his age. I do however hope he's planted the seeds of thought for an upcoming generation to embrace.


 * And a final thought on homosexuality - I guess we'll have to agree to disagree :P. Personally I believe if God wanted us to change the religion for the times, he would tell us in one way or another, although I doubt it would be quite as obvious as it was before. But I don't know. I'm just keeping my eyes and ears open, and doing what the Church (I'm part of the Orthodox Church) has been doing for the last 2 thousand years :). 10:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:"under constrution
It's actually {{ not ( like this

{{under construction}} {{Signatures/Cruser234}} 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that, it was intentional :) but thanks for your concern. <font color="White">Wejer    16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Need help?
IF you need help contact me 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remember you. <font color="White">Wejer   16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm
While I do not agree with some of your view points, I give you respect for being able to speak your mind. Not many people can do that. Its take a lot to be able to speak of where you stand in life and being open about somethings just isn't easy. I respect your opinions as they are yours and do not pertain to me. Keep at whatever you're doing because you're doing great :). In case you ever need me you know where to find me :]. Happy Holidays!, 09:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..
Are you against Jews or not? I wouldn't put such ways to express myself as in your way in a Runescape wikia website.. Needs to be more about Runescape than you. -- 12:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by 'against jews'? I am afraid that I cannot answer a question that is highly unspecific; explain yourself! <font color="White">Wejer   12:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You say Jews must be pissed and all. Nazi or not? -- 13:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

That is the most unbelievable and ill-thought accusiation I have ever heard. My advice to you: learn to read.

I have made the following claims. It should be very clear that I think nazists are scum of this earth:


 * Adolf Hitler was a vegan, animal lover, homosexual and a snorter of cocaine. He was also a murderer, and showed us what will happen if a nobody gain too much power.
 * the Holocaust was an historical fact. Not surprisingly, the current President of Iran thinks otherwise.
 * it is no wonder Israel is pissed, having suffered so much hate from militant muslims and others.
 * Israel have succeeded in at least preserving a democratic tradition, even if it is far from a perfect one.

<font color="White">Wejer   13:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you be nice? I didn't read it all it was too much and too boring. And ok :/ -- 13:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I advice you to read the whole text in the future instead of making irresponsible claims about nazists. I apologize if you have been treated disrespectfuly, that was not my intention. <font color="White">Wejer   13:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't accuse you, i only asked.
 * That was really disrespectful :/.
 * Chill man. -- 13:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't want to sound accusing, you should not go around asking people if they are nazis or not in the first place. They will most likely take offence, just like me. <font color="White">Wejer   14:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well instead of attacking me for a question try to answer a polite "No" instead of thinking me a fool. My advice to you: Keep it cool. -- 14:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, let's forget everything I have said to you, and start anew. *deep breath*

New answer: Thank you for your concern, but I must insist that I am not a nazi, please check my userpage for more info.

Wow, that actually felt a lot better, thanks. <font color="White">Wejer   14:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Er... Adolf hitler also Commited Suicide after the 2nd world war as germany didnt Get what Adolf hitler wanted to have. Signatures are the power!

For fascists, it seems that losing the game is more humiliating than taking your own life. Glad I am not one of them. <font color="White">Wejer   22:02, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you
I've read your user page, and it is certainly interesting.

Thank you for the "invitation" to at least introduce myself and perhaps have you get to know me a little better. I don't see any problem with you expressing your political opinions here, but I'd ask you to keep it here on talk/user pages than getting it all over the wiki. Internal wiki politics is bad enough without injecting larger national and international politics into the equation.

BTW, I tend to also consider myself a conservative libertarian (both little and big "L"). I guess it is summed up with the philosophy that people should do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm somebody else, that most legislation is an awful thing and should usually be voted down, that the court system is the wrong place to enact legislation... where judges should openly express more often in their opinions that the law isn't explicit and therefore the parties involved should take it up with their legislative representatives instead of trying to settle the issue. I also think more judges should be much more aggressive at simply telling people to "grow up, act like adults, and settle this thing outside of my courtroom"... and throw cases in front of them out, including some (not all) criminal cases as well. I also believe that most legislators do their best when they tie up legislation in committee and keep it from even getting voted on in the first place.

(Unfortunately) I am a politician. I finally had enough of the local politics that I finally went to the election clerks where I live and put my name up for a municipal council seat, and I plan to go back and do that again this year. While I didn't win the seat on the last election, there were enough of my fellow citizens that agreed with my position to cast a vote on my behalf that I do feel encouraged to run again. This in spite of my absolutely huge ($20) campaign budget in the last election. I also serve on a couple of policy making boards for some non-profit charity groups and am trying to involve myself in my local community where I can.

Ah well, this whole issue with the confidential information is something I am passionate about, most particularly because apparently several individuals including administrators who should know better are removing content against site policy. I disagree that consensus was achieved on the earlier censoring of the information, and even more strongly I disagree that publication of the sort of information that is being openly censored is something that is harmful either to the continuation of this wiki or to the Runescape playing community. There are harmful things happening in the RS community that should be fought against, but this isn't one of them.

Sorry to take up your talk page here, but you certainly sound like an interesting person yourself. I don't agree with all of your positions, but at least you do have a personal life philosophy that is guiding your decision making. That is more than I've seen from some people. --Robert Horning 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed your stay here. I am putting your name under my 'Good company' heading, hope that is okay with you. I must say that I don't have much experience with law and court, but it certainly peaks my interest, and I can see why being a judge is tough work. If people want to settle something I agree that they should do that through discussion, compromises and consensus, unless they want to fight forever and come nowhere.

I am not very familar with the local politics, because I seldom read our community paper. Frankly, it is mostly full of whining or the polticians backstabbing one another, and it doesn't interest me.

We tend to not vote for a specific person like you do, but instead for the party they represent. This produces some interesting consequences from time to time, but it is usually a bad thing when party chairman orders everybody 'into line' to pass a specific regulation. This time it was increased mass surveillance, which is terrible.

In the end though, the world is changing for the better, even if it goes slower than a snail's pace. <font color="White">Wejer   18:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Great Minds Think Alike
Hello there, I read your message on my talk page and I saw that many people on this wiki think I'm am an atheist but I'm not anymore. I've decided to just become agnostic for the moment because I am undecided. I simply can't choose a side and its hard to tell who you are or what you represent when you are not sure of something. I quit playing RuneScape and I don't usually use this Wiki anymore. If you have a Myspace or a Youtubechannel you can add me if you like so we could share some videos and stuff. I'll love to stay and chat for a little longer but my computer is freezing every time I press the space bar. Peace ;) 18:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have actually never had a MySpace site. Maybe I shall start one. <font color="White">Wejer   18:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

My opinions on your opinions
Well, I read a majority of your opinions and I have think we will have to agree to disagree with a few things.


 * I am a very loyal practicing Christian and I believe God is the Creator and his son, Jesus is my Lord.
 * I am not very right-wing, in fact veer more towards the left, however as I am a Canadian and my political party resorted to a Vote of No-confidence to attempt to rid the Conservative government just two months after the people elected them, I am leaning a little more towards the right.
 * I think Obama is the best thing for America, however I feel people should wait to see him in action before they start building alters to praise him.
 * I believe Global Warming in inevitable for our future at this time.

Hope this clarifies some of our differences. Lol!

08:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice to meet you bonziiznob, and welcome to my user page.


 * I won't stop you for believing in a God, because it doesn't hurt me in anyway. However, I will always take my chance to make christianity less of a radical religion.
 * I don't have any so much knowledge about Canadian politics, so I can't make a very good statement there. However, from what I can see from this link (http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008), I must say that I don't really fancy any of the political parties you have in your parliament, since I am myself quite the right-wing libertian.
 * I guess Obama has been improving for the better now when he has won the election. Before I thought he wasn't very down to earth, perhaps because I personally tend to shun politicians that are overly charismatic. I actually considered McCain to be a better man; that is until I checked where he stood on social policies and received serious goose bumps. Hopefully Obama will continue lower the taxes for the average american and push for more peacefulness in the world.
 * Why do you think global warming is inevitable? Is it because of natural causes or because mankind has screwed up beyond repair?

<font color="White">Wejer   12:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you


 * Christianity has been around for 2000 years. Although the Church has lost a majority of it's influence and power, there will be a time when Jesus returns and all will who do not believe or have faith will be doomed. Let's hope it's not in your time. Christ has Come, Christ has Gone, Christ will Come Again.
 * I was all for NDP. If you take a look at their platform it appears they had the most down to earth means of running Canada. When the conservative ran for a Majority Government just 1 year after they had won a minority, I was hoping the NDP would get a few extra seats. When the Conservatives won another minority, my party teamed with the Liberals and Quebec (who believe Quebec should separate from Canada), I was opposed to this vote of No-Confidence on the means that my party was teaming up with a party who wants to separate Canada.
 * Obama still has a long way to go. God forbid, I can honestly see him being assassinated. :(
 * Global Warming is the effect of Man. Sure there have been times when the planet has done this to its self, but it usually then follows with a huge ice age. The planet will restore itself, but I think we can give it a break and try our hardest to make it easier.

23:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Being a Christian too, I thought I should say something. Chances are that the end times and the rapture are near. This conclusion is made from these pieces of evidence. Anyway I've said my piece, one thing you should note is that all unbelievers get sent to Hell for eternity, so don't think that being an atheist won't harm you in any way. Calebchiam 07:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The Bible prophesied that the Jews would return to their homeland before the end times. In May 14 1948, the Jews returned to their homeland after being scattered for more than 2000 years.
 * The Bible also spoke of the mark of the beast (666), would be on every person's hand or forehead. But there will some believers who will refuse to have the mark and die because of this, becoming martyrs. It is believed that this mark will be in the form of a chip that is inserted under your skin. It will render credit cards useless and possibly cash too.
 * In Daniel 12:4, it is said that "many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased." which speaks of our knowledge increasing faster and faster. Think about it, and few hundred years ago, the fastest we could travel was by horseback. Now we can travel to the Moon! A few hundred years ago, the fastest way we could communicate was by letters, which were delivered on horseback. Now we have email, which does that for us in a few seconds!
 * In Zechariah 14:12, it says "And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." This is talking about nuclear weapons, yet this was written thousands of years ago. How did a prophet predict this thousands of years ago? By the hand of God.


 * It doesn't really matter when the end times are. Just try to live as if they're tomorrow and don't worry about it :P 06:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

During the end times, people die. You should read theLeft Behind series for a more adept understanding. I believe people should worry about the future. Calebchiam 07:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I mean it shouldn't matter as long as we live like it's tomorrow. Just like the teaching that if you live as if you could die tomorrow, then you'll always be ready for it when it actually does happen. :P 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Calebchiam, are you seriously suggesting people use a fictional interpretation of a book in the Bible as a cliffnotes of what will actually happen in the future in the real world? --nekobawt 00:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't interpret it literally, but embrace the basic message (although last I knew, Left Behind didn't align with my denomination's beliefs) like you would with, perhaps, the Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. 04:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again Bonziiznob,


 * I appreciate your concern with having to save my soul from eternal damnation in the afterlife. That means you are a nice person deep inside. However, the reason I proclaim myself an atheist is not some sort of prank on religious people. It is ultimately my choice. You can of course still try to convince me, but that would ultimately be a waste of our time. Even if I disagree with you at many points, I respect your beliefs, and I hope that you will do the same.
 * This may be just a hunch, but you seem a bit lost politically. Have you taken the political compass test? (http://www.politicalcompass.org/) It sure helped me clarifying a few points. When you have taken the test, you can compare your result with the canadian political parties. (http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2008)
 * Isn't it a sin to wish someone dead, especially a fellow christian? Even if Obama and I disagree on many points, I still wouldn't wish him dead for any reason.
 * Since you seem like the adamant kind of person, you should have no trouble handling the counter-arguments to climate-change found here.

<font color="White">Wejer   10:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

To Calebchiam - welcome to my talk page!

It is a nice little "list of proof" you have found there. However, I wonder why it isn't more clear? I thought the christian god was supposed to know everything. Being a bit more specific doesn't hurt really. Assuming God exists, one would expect him to show his face more often so as to convince the "unbelievers" such as myself.

Oh, and when it comes to burning in hell, I will take my chances ;) <font color="White">Wejer    12:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I will be on again soon to dicuss, but as I am finishing my shift at work I can't right now. Just letting you know I have found a new possible sig for you that meets your previous request:

<font color="White">Wejer

<font color="White">Wejer

Note: There are some changes going on between font, span and div so this might need some tweaking to fix the new style. 13:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, what do you actually mean by "specific"? If you mean that it isn't very clear then well of course. It was translated from another language into English, and it was Olde English. Naturally, some might find it hard to understand/read. 13:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not being specific myself. What I mean is that if one is going to make a prophecy, why make it vague at all? Wouldn't that mean that some people could actually dispute it? Because if you know the truth, why not be open about it and deliver a big wall of text? It doesn't make sense to me, unless it was some "wise man" who were just speculating about the future. If the christian church wishes to convert atheists they have to bring up solid proof of god's existance, otherwise they will have to make do as is, with some people believing in God but not all. <font color="White">Wejer   13:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I understand what you're getting at. But could you list an example? I don't really see anything vague about the verses. If you're asking why God didn't just tell them to write "There will be nuclear bombs capable of mass destruction.", then I can explain that the Bible was supposed to be readable by anyone and everyone, people back then would be like "What is this "nuclear" you speak of?" 04:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You state that you "don't really see anything vague about the verses". However, the guy who wrote the section called Zechariah 14:12 may not have had nuclear bombs in mind. Because if he did, wouldn't the whole christian world have anticipated a man-made doomsday weapon (and possible done everything in their power to stop them)? It seems more likely that other people have put words in an old man's mouth to further their own aims. This makes the section dubious as proof of the end of the world, let alone existance of God himself. It is possible that Christians don't need solid proof to keep believing in a higher entity.


 * Personally, I think the text was just a way to scare the ordinary man into doing "the right thing". Even if the methods were dubious, it probably got the job done, sort of. If you have to stick with interpretating the text literally, the text is more likely a foreboding of a really nasty disease. Alternatively a pyroclastic flow. It could be whole lot of things, although bible texts can be pretty much anything you want them to be. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The guy who wrote Zechariah 14:12 was writing what God "told" him to write. Also, I'm not really sure I understand, but what do you mean by "wouldn't the whole christian world have anticipated a man-made doomsday weapon (and possible done everything in their power to stop them)?" Most of them probably would not know what the verse meant and besides since it is predicted in the Bible, then they would have no power to stop it. What "other people" are you talking about. what "aims" would these people have? Also, how does the text scare the ordinary man into doing "the right thing" (what is this right thing you speak of?)? The Bible is telling people what will happen during the End Times, not attempting to scare them. How could it make them do the right thing, I don't know. In this time and age, it is quite easy to tell that the verse refers to nuclear weapons and not some disease.

This section from Zechariah 14:12, "Their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth." Doesn't it describe so "perfectly" (for lack of a better word) what happens when you're simply walking and a nuclear bomb strikes? Maybe I didn't understand what you typed correctly. 07:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am dropping this discussion because we are probably going nowhere. Besides it tires me to no end, and for little reason. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 11:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re:Offer
Thank you for your offer. Since you asked, I will post some of my world views:


 * I generally dislike political framing (liberal, conservative, etc) but I found myself in the third quadrant (left wing libertian) close to the centre when I took the test.


 * I too consider myself a man of logic, but I do not find it logical for such a complex universe to have created itself. There must be a supreme being who created or oversees the creation of the world.  This makes me a man of faith as well as a man of logic.


 * I am a Christian and I attend church every Sunday, but I do not believe in a word for word interpretation of the Bible. A word for word interpretation is just as dangerous as complete disregard.  For example, although I am not gay myself I believe that gays should be allowed to legally wed as they are not hurting anyone.


 * I consider myself strongly pro-life and try to abide by a consistent life ethic. This means that I am against all forms of capital punishment, abortion, suicide, and unjust war.  Although teen pregnancy and personal poverty are undesirable circumstances, avoiding them does not justify taking a life. Dtm142 21:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the spirit Dtm. Believe in faith, not religion. The Church has always been a bit screwed up as it will continue to be so. That is no reason to give up in what you believe in :).(You believe in what you believe in and no one can take that away from you.), 21:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Various studies show that theists have better morals than atheists (and live longer too!) on average.  However, there have been countless occurences in history of religious extremists taking things too far   .  Religious tolerance is essential to prevent these events from reoccuring. Dtm142 21:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, Dtm, you sound like me. Are you my long lost twin or something? 21:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Offer
Even though you're gone until January 12th, I figured I should respond to your offer. I've read most of your points and I agree with you on some but disagree on others. Now, I am not an atheist, however I do not follow any church or religion very closely, although my basic beliefs follow Christian or Uranitian more than any other, I suppose. I am also not unreasonable, however, I, like most other humans in the world, believe that I am right, and will do many things to accomplish being right.

Anyway, now that I've given you a little background information on myself, I will tell you which points I want to comment on:


 * I agree with you about abortion for the most part, however, I think that it is not only the woman's choice, but the father (or the man that the woman is currently involved with at the time) should have his say in it as well, unless the baby is the result of rape. I'm a little harsh on the teen pregnancy issue. Since the parents usually end up taking care of the baby if it's born, and if it isn't it may ruin the girl's life as she still has to go to school and may have to get a job and such, I think that the parent's should have the final say in the matter if the daughter is under 16, although 18 is a more convenient age as the legal age for most things in my country (the United States) is 18.


 * I am not here to tell you what you should believe in or get in a heated religious debate, nor do I believe that you will go to hell for simply not believing in God or Jesus Christ. I do, however, wonder why someone would choose to be an atheist. By this, I ask why would someone not want to believe that there is eternal life after death, or at least some form of life? Why would this person want to believe that when they die everything is simply "over", and there is nothing more? Does an atheist choose to be an atheist because they have had a traumatic experience in there life, or because there is no evidence that proves God exists?


 * I believe that communism has a decent concept, however, I am not a communist nor do I support communism. I believe that communism fails in the fact that it does not allow any religion. I do not believe that religion should be forced, but surely simply allowing it does not interfere very much, if at all. [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 01:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, Communism only works on paper. It doesn't work in practice. Also on the topic of teen or otherwise unwanted pregnancy - they don't have to keep the child. When the baby is born they can put it up for adoption if they can't keep it, and there are many charities and other groups that will happily help someone who is having difficulty taking care of herself during pregnancy. As for schooling.. well, I'm in an independent study program, and about 1/4 of the students are expectant mothers. It works very well for them. They can come in every day and get ahead credit-wise and then take a couple weeks off after they have their baby without falling terribly behind. It's an excellent program :) 04:24, 30 Decem:ber 2008 (UTC)
 * While you are correct that they don't have to keep the child, you forget the pain of having the baby. While nowadays most women take an epidural to reduce pain, some may think that this is wrong, and some just don't have the baby at a hospital where epidurals are easier to obtain. What I mean by all this is that the pain of having the baby combined with all the stress that a teen mother may have, this may cause her to which to have an abortion. I think that she should be allowed to have an abortion, but she must ask her parents for consent if she is under 16. My reasoning against your idea of adoption is the fact that the mother having the baby may not want to endure the pain of the baby and couldn't live with giving it up to someone else. While I think that both of those reasons are very selfish, the cold hard truth is it happens. This may drive many mothers to abortion, which I believe is much better than say, having someone punch the mother in the stomach, don't you? The fact is that some forms of abortion are going to happen anyway, so it's better to have them available than to force the mother and anyone else around her into trying unprofessional methods that may cause severe defects to the baby if it survives, or severe damage to the mother. As for schooling, independent study programs have been proven to be less effective than traditional schooling. Taking a "couple weeks" off of school will not help a single teen mother who just had a baby. It would be much easier for the mother to have an abortion now, and then when or if she is ready at an older age to make an educated decision on whether or not she really wants a baby or not. Wall of text... :( [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 11:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "This may drive many mothers to abortion, which I believe is much better than say, having someone punch the mother in the stomach, don't you?" - I don't, but I guess this comes down to my belief that a fetus is just as alive and human as any birthed child.


 * I also have to disagree with the last statement, although I suppose it might depend on the independent study teacher. Ours is extremely motivating and probably the best teacher the world has ever seen (I don't say that lightly, either). Many of them may experience a fair deal of stress, but they're with the best people in the world and other mothers who have been through the exact same thing they've gone through for 5 hours each weekday morning. Also, almost all of them have had cesarian sections, partly because they're too petite to handle the birth, partly because there's a lot less pain and agony (the latter is assumed). 19:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Pain and stress do not justify killing a child. While it is stressful for a teenager to be pregnant, it is also stressful for a teenager to be a parent of a child of any age.  Yet it is illegal and socially unacceptable to murder a child of any age provided that the child has been born, even if the parent is a teenager who is stressed out.  Open adoption, in which the birth mother chooses the adoptive parents and communicates with them, is an option for mothers who want to know the fate of their children.  It seems ironic to me that someone would rather know that their baby is dead (and be responsible for the baby's death) than be unsure of their baby's circumstances.  As for unsafe (illegal) methods of abortion, criminalizing abortion is only part of the solution to the problem.  It is an essential step, but it is not the only one.  Sex education, access to contraceptives, and better support for single mothers are also necessary to permanently solve the issue. Dtm142 19:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To Rendova: I don't understand how you would think that normal abortion is as "bad" as having someone punch the mother in the stomach. This would damage to human beings, according to your beliefs (scientifically, the baby at the time that abortion is allowed is simply a "ball of cells"). Wouldn't damaging two be worse than damaging one? Having a c-section leaves a large scar which many women don't want to carry around with them for the rest of their life, they would instead to prefer to kill the "ball of cells", because most of the world is "pro-choice", not "pro-life". Regarding the independent study, it's not just me who says that they aren't as effective, it's a large amount of studies that have proven that for the most part, they aren't as effective.

To Dtm142: Like I said to Rendova, most of the world does not recognize the fetus at the time abortion is allowed to be a child. Criminalizing abortion would only cause mothers to die as well as the baby, which causes twice as many deaths. The point is that no matter what we do, teen pregnancy is going to happen. We already have sex education, access to contraceptives, and support for single mothers. What you define as "better" is all subjective. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 02:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My mother had an abortion...I wanted to play with my new brother or sister. Now, they are dead. My mother is free...my sibling is dead... 10:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What "most of the world thinks" isn't always what is right. On some days, "most of the world" gets the SAT question of the day wrong.   Does being part of the majority mean that you're right?  At times in history Jews, blacks, and even women were not considered to be human beings deserving of rights according to "most of the world".  It seems that you're using level of development to define personhood, which is just as faulty as using religion, race, or gender.  A five year old is not as developed as a twenty five year old.  Does that mean that the five year old is only a "ball of cells" and not a "human being"?  It is worth noting that Bernard Nathanson lied about the number of women who died by the means of illegal abortions before abortion was legal in the United States (he said that it was in the tens of thousands).  On the other hand, over 40 million babies have been killed legally since then and these numbers are actually real.  It is the responsibility of the government to grant basic legal rights (specifically life, liberty, and property) to all people.  There is no evidence that murder laws or drunk driving laws actually work, but they are still necessary to grant fundamental legal rights to life and safety. Dtm142 03:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's legalize murder. That way, we save the attacker from having to go through all those hard times in jail as a consequence of his actions! After all, murder is going to happen anyway =D 03:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Or even better yet, let's set up safe, government funded assassination "clinics". That way, the attacker does not have to risk their life when they are already going through such a stressful procedure. Dtm142 18:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dtm: I never said what most of the world thinks was right, but then again, "right" and "wrong" are simply opinions when it comes to most things. Oh sure, you give an example that is purely quantitative, but I mean other things. A five year old is a child which has a brain and a mind and has THOUGHTS. A "ball of cells" is NOT (scientifically) a human being, at least not when abortion is legal (only part of the first trimester or something, I'm actually not sure but it's fairly early on). It does not have thoughts. It doesn't see or hear or have any of the five senses as far as we know. It doesn't have any feelings. It's pretty much just a bunch of cells that can become a human being. It isn't one yet. Five year old children are humans; they have thoughts, feelings, senses, et cetera. If the "ball of cells" just destroys the mother's life, was it really worth having it? The abortion never killed anything, all it did was get rid of a bunch of cells forming in the womb. They aren't really babies at this point.


 * Rendova: That is completely different. Actually, think of it like this: The mother is pregnant. The baby is going to cause her to lose her job because the guy ran out on her and she has to take care of the baby. Her parents refuse to help her and say she's a whore for going out a having sex without protection if she didn't want a baby. She feels terrible, and the baby at this point has no feelings, thoughts, or anything remarkable. It's a parasite. It eats away at the mother's food and takes away everything she has (both metaphorically and realistically) and she is forced to live on the street with no one to help her. She wants to have an abortion to try and salvage the remains of her life, so she gets the money (somehow, not really important in this story) and gets an abortion. This could be thought of as simply self-defense, she was saving herself from something that would destroy her life, and she didn't have to really kill anyone, except a ball of cells. But then again, it's really the abortion doctor who did that. She feels bad that she had to sacrifice a baby's life to save her own, but realizes that it was much better than having a baby out in the streets that would probably die anyway.


 * Murder is going to happen, yes. But the murderers (those who are guilty of first degree, anyway) killed people with their own choice and intent to harm them, with only personal gain and sometimes these people had never done anything to them and were never going to harm them. Murderers kill people one purpose. Intent to kill. To cause harm, to destroy. Enjoying the pain of their victims. Sometimes even torture. This is nothing like abortion, which is killing a ball of cells. This kills a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being that feels pain and fear. I find it sickening that you think of these two things as being so close together... (If you don't, I don't understand your point, please clarify) [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 05:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've heard of people who have been murdered over $20. I've heard of people who were murdered because they were blackmailing, and going to ruin the other person's life. In both cases they were charged with murder. Both victims, as are the attackers, just like you, Dtm, and I, are all just bundles of cells. Some of us happen to have senses. In fact, babies begin developing senses in the first 2 months. I heard, some time ago (google failed to turn up results), about a person who was born without any of the 6 senses. Does that make this person inhuman?


 * If you really think abortions are painless, perhaps you need to research the actual techniques used to abort babies. I like this article although a quick Google search on "methods of abortion" will turn up many different descriptions of these.


 * "But the murderers (those who are guilty of first degree, anyway) killed people with their own choice and intent to harm them, with only personal gain and sometimes these people had never done anything to them and were never going to harm them. Murderers kill people one purpose. Intent to kill." - by your own definition, abortion is first degree murder. The vast majority of abortions are performed because the child is simply unwanted or inconvenient. See this article for the statistic stating, "1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)." I found this statistic on over 10,000 sites when I plugged it into google.


 * So the vast majority (93%) of abortions have little or nothing to do with the mother's well-being. I stated earlier my view that if the mother's life is in danger, then I personally think that abortion perhaps should be an option when all else fails. When the pregnancy is preventing the mother from being able to work and her employers don't offer any benefits for expectant female employees, she doesn't need to look far for help. Churches are everywhere and many whole parishes and people (myself included) would gladly help out. The mother just needs to put some miniscule effort into searching. If she can handle the pregnancy but won't be able to support the child after it is born, she can simply put it up for adoption.


 * I don't see how you can find our views sickening. It's not like we're killing babies >.< 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct, all humans are just "bundles of cells". However we have feelings and we think. Fetuses in the the womb do not. I didn't say abortions were painless (as far as I know) to the mother or to the fetus. However, we really can't ask the fetus, now, can we?


 * What I meant was that in all cases of first degree murder they had the intent to kill. I didn't say abortion was first degree murder. That's like saying because some ice cream has chocolate in it all ice cream has chocolate in it...or something like that. (Failed simile) I guess we have differ on what "the mother's well being" means. I think that both physical (e.g. the mother cannot have the baby as it would kill her), mental (e.g. the mother can't handle the stress of the baby), and "environmental" (e.g. the mother loses her job, house, friends) are all included in this. I believe that if the child is unwanted or inconvenient then she should be able to get rid of the baby (with the consent of the father if he can be contacted, with consent of the parents if under 18). If a woman is a model (I find this career stupid, but that's not the point) for a fashion magazine and she gets pregnant even with birth control, what do you think she should do? A woman's body is changed drastically when pregnant as we all know, and after pregnancy can leave a large number of things that last for life or for many years such as scars for c-sections and stretch marks. She most likely couldn't be a model anymore. Do you suggest we get rid of her right to do what career she wants because you think it's wrong to kill a ball of cells? Scientifically, you have brought up a few true points and before I go any further let me address them. The fetus does begin to develop a form of senses in the first 2 months. But we don't know exactly how developed they are, we only know some of it. Like I said before, we can't ask the fetus if it hurt to be aborted, can we? All we can ask is the mother. The mother will usually feel sad that she had to kill her "baby" to continue living her life the way she wants to, but will probably feel justified by the fact that bringing a baby into the world at that time just wasn't what she wanted to do. Now, I previously stated that these "balls of cells" aren't babies because they don't have senses and that they don't think. My point still stands: fetuses don't think: at all. There is little brain activity at the times abortion is allowed. All it is is just for making the fetus become a fully fledged newborn, but if it is aborted it will never happen and thus was not a human being yet.


 * I find your beliefs disgusting because you're comparing abortion to murder. This is like comparing killing a worm (not saying that fetuses are like worms - just an easy comparison) to killing a chimpanzee. Which do you find worse? Or do you find them both the same because you believe neither is superior to the other? Which would make us barely superior to a worm (we share 97% of our DNA with chimps).

To Bonziiznob: So, since you're against abortion, would you want your mother to go to jail for murder to having an abortion? Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 07:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Personally, no person should want their mother to go to jail. Now to say my mother was some other women I'd have to follow my beliefs and say yes, but not as murder, perhaps manslaughter. A life is given by the hand of God to a child when it is conceived. It may not have a brain, a voice, the know how of anything, but they do indeed have a life and take that life is a sin of our God. The same is about arguing for animals. Animals have no voice. They can't speak for themselves yet that does not disclose they have feelings, share pain and love with others and are affected by the death of other animal. Elephants will stay by the side of another dead elephant until they have said there good bye. I am all for speaking for those with no voice. I speak on behalf on animals for they can't express what they need (I was vegetarian for 2 1/2 years and am an active member of PETA, however do to a hereditary illness in the family I am forced to eat meat). I speak for those children who have died from abortion. They had a life taken from there. We talk about the justice of the mother, of the father but what about the child. Someone must speak for the children, justice must be served. 07:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I would not want my mother to go to jail, but I expect that she needs to confess her sin to our father and ask him for forgiveness.


 * I'm too tired to respond right now, but quick question: are you religious? Or more specifically, Christian? My beliefs pertaining to these points brought up above as well as a main part of my thoughts on abortion in general are greatly influenced by my faith. But I need to go to bed... I'm a zombie, having been up almost 48 hours now *blahhh* nighty night :P 07:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not an atheist, however I do not follow any church or religion very closely, although my basic beliefs follow Christian or Uranitian more than any other, I suppose. I rely on science, rahter than faith, at least when it comes to abortion. [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 07:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are a Christian, you know full well that one is encouraged (even required) to help their neighbours. This includes going as far as giving up your entire life to serve others.  One of the Ten Commandments is also "Thou shalt not kill."  By these rules, aborting a child that you do not want to support is impermissible by the funadmental rules of Christianity.  A human fetus is a human being by the theory of biogenesis (currently accepted universally by scientists): Life can only come from other life, and one species can only be produced by that same species.  By this criteria, a human fetus is and only can be a human being.  It was produced by two parents (both humans) and will develop into a human (not a worm, sponge, dog, snake, or even a chimpanzee).  Therefore, it is a human being.  The presence of thought or senses do not determine whether you are human.  By your logic, a reversibly comatose patient would not be human and it would be okay to kill it because it lacks senses.  Senses do not determine humanity.


 * Pregnancy is a natural consequence of sexual intercourse just like bodily harm and financial costs are consequences of reckless driving. If someone loses their driving privileges because of numerous at fault collisions, this is completely justified even if it means that they will lose their career and their family will not support them.  Contraceptives (similar to seatbelts and airbags) should be available, but they are not a suitable substitute for abstinence and natural family planning.  Realistically, removing seatbelts and airbags will not cause safer driving much like limited access to contraceptives will not reduce unmarried sex.  However, dangerous driving should not go unpunished and nor should abortion.


 * would you want your mother to go to jail for murder to having an abortion? I naturally would not "want" my mother to go to jail as a result of any crime.  If my mother had robbed a bank, it would be very sad for me to see her go to jail but a prison sentence would be the right thing to do.  It would be a necessary outcome.  I will ask you an equally valid question: Would you want your mother to have aborted you? Dtm142 18:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * All these hardcore, all-out going Christians should shove their anti-abortion signs, to be honest. It's not their decision and it's not their problem, so they should stay the hell out of it. Besides, all these Christian ideas are very similar to Nazi beliefs, so they should be the ones ashamed. In the name of God? Pah, more like in the name of Hitler these people are getting involved in matters that don't involve them. We're going to have to agree to disagree here, I won't be convinced by your arguments, you won't be convinced by mine.


 * Ah, someone finally caught me on the "not a human being" argument. Well done. However, does the fetus have any choices? We've already established it doesn't know anything, it doesn't think, and it's senses may or may not be very developed when it is aborted. (2 and 1/2 months is about the limit, fetuses just start to develop senses at about two months)


 * It's the woman's body. If she doesn't want the scarring or the pain of having/raising the baby, that's her choice. I, of course, believe that she should either have consent from the father of the baby, and/or (if she's under eighteen) her parents. Abortion is not near as bad as say, killing a twenty-year old. Why? Because that twenty year old has a long life ahead of him (most likely) and wants to accomplish things, wants to live and then maybe have kids of their own. A two month old in the womb fetus does not have any hopes, dreams, thoughts, choices, feelings, and barely has any form of what we might call "senses". At this point the "baby" might as well be thought of like a parasite. It just eats the mother's food, like a tubeworm. Of course tubeworms would be considered much worse and more disgusting, right? Because they can't be human. I'm not denying fetuses won't become human if they are allowed to be developed. But in the first two and a half months it's not killing a baby, it's killing a parasite known as a fetus. I suppose you disagree with stem-cell research, too? Senses do not make humanity. You are very correct. But choices are what life is about (opinion). I don't think it would be okay to kill a permanently comatose patient because it would make any family they had lose any shred of hope they had last. Fetuses cannot feel emotions. They can't hope. They can't dream. An adult can do these things, that's what makes people human. A fetus can't make decisions, and thus can't make right decisions, wrong decisions, make mistakes, et cetera. It can't do anything. A comatose patient is not even close to the same. They would have to be fed, yes. But are they sucking the life force out of a woman? No. Do they have thoughts? Some say they do, others say they don't, we can only really tell by brain activity, and if they don't have any, they are called brain dead, which might as well be killed.


 * How can you compare dangerous driving to abortion? Dangerous driving isn't positively going to kill anyone (if it does, the person would be in prison, not getting their driving privileges revoked). Abortion, by what you have said, is killing.


 * If my mother had aborted me, I would not have cared, would I? I would have had no hopes, no dreams, no thoughts. I was just a...parasite. I think that every mother is strong for not killing that parasite that grew inside them for nine months, only having a legal option for the first two and a half months. [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 21:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In the name of Hitler? Did you know that Nazi Germany was one of the first countries to legalize abortion?  Yes, abortion was part of their scheme to "purify" the German race.  A state that is so corrupt and had such little appreciation for human life legalized abortion.  If we are opposing abortion in anyone's name, it certainly isn't Hitler's.


 * Matters that involve bloodshed should concern everyone. "It doesn't affect me, so it isn't be my problem" was the faulty logic that lead to World War II and the Holocaust.  The Nazi party achieved power because the people let them, and they turned a blind eye on the "undesirable parasites" that were to be annihilated.  European superpowers turned a blind eye on Hitler and decided to let him have his fun with Czechoslovakia as well as other European states.  If they had stopped him then, he wouldn't have been able to start the second Great War.  Abortion always results in a death, which is not a private matter.


 * I agree that the woman's body belongs to her, but a fetus is not part of her body. The fetus has its own body and therefore should have the right to do whatever they want with it.  There are two "bodies" involved in an abortion.  A fetus is not actually "sucking the life" out of a woman.  The woman will not die if she does not get the abortion.  She will only suffer for up to nine months.  Although it is difficult at the time, nine months is nothing compared to the average lifespan of a human.  It should not result in muder.  Womens' rights cannot come at the expense of human rights.


 * Of course the fetus doesn't have any choices! This is why it is necessary to defend it - it cannot defend itself.  It is truly weak and, in every respect, is helpless.  A twenty year old may have a future, but so does a fetus.  The fetus may not know its future yet, but that does not mean that the world does not have a place for it.  A fetus actually may have twenty more years left in its future than a twenty year old.  A cure for cancer could have been lost in the millions of lives that have been taken.  A fetus should not be dehumanized because of an inability to make choices.  An infant has less developed senses than an adult and cannot make choices at the beginning of their life.  By your logic, both would not be humans.


 * I compared dangerous driving to unsafe sex because it is a reckless activity that has human life as an expense. I was using it to refer to natural consequences that result from such negligence.


 * If your mother had aborted you, I can tell you what actually would have happened: we would have been short a RuneScape Wiki editor. I would not have wanted this, and who knows how many more we could have lost? Dtm142 23:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you a fetus? 22:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Kudos 2 U
Hello Kudos 2 U,

I apologigze for the late reply, and hope you have not become disillusioned with my talk page. I will try to answer your concerns with communism and atheism, as well as putting an end to this abortion debate (which is probably not going to go anywhere).


 * What a nice change that you don't wish me to burn in hell for my sins, that certainly cheers me up. You wonder why I choose to be an atheist. Reason is that I cannot honestly believe in something that I don't think is plausible, real or true. Because I cannot fathom the idea of a God, I also cannot believe in him. It is as simple as that. It may seem kind of bleak that I am not expecting myself an afterlife, but this is something I generally do not worry about. If you are dead, you probably wouldn't feel anything anyway. And because it is inevitable, being afraid of death is simply pointless in the long run.


 * Communism is just like socialism a good concept on paper. If it wasn't, there would have been no reason for governments to have it on their agenda. But because it is, both social democracies and communist regimes, new and old, get away with the suffering they are causing to their people. Having a dream is not enough, it must also work, or it may lead to disaster.

Feel free to post a reply. <font color="White">Wejer   13:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: Communist regimes may be atheist, but that doesn't mean they haven't got religious tendacies. <font color="White">Wejer   13:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Just thought I would drop you a line. You might consider me an oddball because
 * I believe in God but His message has been diluted by people seeking to line their coffers.::I believe, though life begins at the womb, that the choice of the life is up to the parent. IMHO, if you cannot support that child or provide stability for that child...then please do not cause that innocent soul to suffer. Read below.

I guess I have more, and will share more when the time is right. At work now and must peretend to to do some sort of work, yes? Eternalseed


 * Eternal, this is why we were advocating putting unwanted children up for adoption. I don't see how protecting a life that can't yet protect itself would make pro-lifers rich, either :s 20:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I could argue the opposite. Abortionists get rich if abortion is legal and in demand.  Your logic would justify "mercy killings" and euthanasia.  If someone decides that they are suffering so much that their life is not worth living, it is a tragedy.  It is not reasonable to suggest that they should not have been born. Dtm142 21:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am a personal support worker and I have the privileged of spending my time with underdeveloped adults. These people may not have much of a social life, family structure or things you or I have, but I'll tell you what, they are happy and they have people that love them. Everyone is loved, everyone. Euthanasia is wrong, period, it is wrong. One man, and one man only decides who lives and who gets life and when it ends, and that is God. God decides. Fate is not given from God, which means things can happen by your decision, such as euthanasia, but whatever it is, it's in God's plan. We are not the black sheep. 10:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - What a load of - err, excuse me sorry. Do you have any evidence to back up your comments about God being the one "man" who decides fate? (Don't source the Bible) No? Alright. But you are of course allowed your opinions on everything, and I respect them, and your job sounds good, but not everyone is loved. By your own logic, euthanasia is part of God's plan, right? He decides who lives and who dies? So then how is it wrong? Are you accusing God of breaking his own rules? [[Image:Rollbackcrown.PNG‎]] Kudos 2 U [[User

talk:Kudos 2 U|Talk!]] Edit count! Contribs! 07:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have taken the time to question my God's plans and predestined fate. This is my conclusion: God has set us on this earth. He has a plan for us, a goal for us, something set out for us, but, how we get to achieve this or not to achieve this is up to us. Fate is determined by God, but it can be influenced by us. We have the ability to change our fate henceforth God's plan is not set in stone. God wishes for all his children to follow and believe him but not all of us do. If he wanted us to, we would all believe, but it's not his plan. His plan is to allow us to decided our fate, he's just given us the back support to do so. Sophocles wrote much about this topic in his works on the Theban Plays, especially in King Oedipus, or even the modern version of tragedy, Death of a Salesman or The Great Gatsby, all of which I would highly recommend. 08:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lemme clarify. By what I said by this is the person who knows they cannot support the kid, and knows that they do not want children and deliberately chooses to bring a child in this world anyway...I in no way, because I was one who should not have survived till now, suggest that people should not have been born. I guess...rambling..the best way to say this, is use common sense. If you can support new life, then do so if not, then please do not... [[Image:Guthix_crozier.png‎|25px]] Eternalseed   [[Image:Guthix_book.png‎|25px]]
 * If you cannot support a new life, you should not engage in activities that will produce a new life (this goes for anyone of any age or gender). Once you do produce a new life however, it is impermissible by the Bible to destroy that life. Dtm142 17:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points everyone. However, when some of you say that abortion is wrong, you still refrain from discussing suitable punishments. Personally, I think it is enough that a mother shall have to pay a hefty hospital bill for her trouble. Making abortion a crime would only say that it is the state that has the right over the female body, and not the mother herself. If some christians believe that abortion would make her burn in hell, then so be it. It is ultimately her choice, and forcing someone to go against their wishes will only lead to grief, even if the cause is noble. <font color="White">Wejer   12:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What that brings up is a whole can of worms and had been brought up in some science-fiction or post-apocalyptic statements. Personally, I agree Wejer, that the choice of the woman is up to that woman. Would that they not have a child if they cannot afford it, but I do not think we should regulate who can and who cannot procreate. You live with your own choices three times: when you do it, after it's done, and when you die, irregardless of your religious beliefs. Eternalseed

Indeed, equal rules for everyone is fundamental to a fair and just society. So also when it comes to procreation, as you yourself put it. <font color="White">Wejer   15:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I just love my typos. Anyway...unfortunately we do not have a fair and just society. Call it 'Origional Sin', call it 'human fallacy', however you wish to spin it...it's not happening. So, it just takes people, IMO, from all faiths and from all backgrounds to speak out re injustices. Nice talk, by the way, even though we have some disagreements on some things. Hope you don't mind if I watch this page. --Eternalseed 16:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not really sure what you are hinting at here. Of course we are just human, and are limited in that regard. However that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to change the world for the better. Even if we don't achieve the "big goal" right away we can always try to shoot for the smaller ones first.


 * If you want to watch my user page that is totally fine by me. I would also love to hear about those "disagreements" of yours. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what I was trying to say is that there will not be an unconscoius attempt for an utopian society in which people are all treated fairly, from equal rights to law and order. Being Christian (I'd still love to save your soul but respect it's your call), I know it's required by the spark of loving other than yourself. My faith has it as loving God more than yourself...however it can also mean putting someone else or the needs of another (within reason) before yourself. So by that token, it will take a) people leaving the ID fallacy, of me me me   b) people showing concern for their fellow man. ba) this also means having religious debates without swords drawn...what happened to civility?    If I need to expound on it, let me know. [[Image:Guthix_crozier.png‎|25px]]  Eternalseed   [[Image:Guthix_book.png‎|25px]]

A punishment would be a murder charge. The state doesn't have control over a woman's body. However, it should protect what I (personally) believe is a human individual who has just as much of a right to live as any of us do. 03:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I can see where you are coming from, Rend, how would you respond to thus: 1) A child of incest who did not wish for her father to impregnate her? 2) A mother who was told she would die if she delivered to term? I know of a few, and it was only by a medical miracle that mine did not die on the operating table. [[Image:Guthix_crozier.png‎|25px]] Eternalseed   [[Image:Guthix_book.png‎|25px]]
 * It is the responsibility of the state to protect all of its citizens, including the smallest and most vulnerable. There are certain people in my life who only affect me adversely.  Should it be legal for me to kill them, or should I have to go against my will and keep them alive?  I would never do such a thing because I am bound by religious and moral standards, but what about someone who isn't religious and doesn't have the same ethics?  A hospital bill is not a suitable punishment for an abortion any more than having to pay for a gun is a suitable punishment for murder.  If a state cannot protect life, it has no justice and will never be able to protect liberty or property.  Your rights end where mine begin.  You can do whatever you want with your body as long as it does not harm another person.


 * As for exceptional circumstances, abortion is only justified if it is necessary to save the mother's life (and even then it should be optional, like any medical procedure). Examples include uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy.  This way, only one person will die rather than both and it is not really an abortion in the sense of the word since the baby would "get aborted" either way.  Rape and incest are tragic and are almost as bad as murder (some rape victims would say that they would rather have been killed, but I fortunately have not been raped so I can't tell for sure).  However, two wrongs do not make a right.  It is bad enough that a rape had to happen.  The situation does not need to get worse if a murder is involved.  We do not allow a woman to avenge herself by killing the rapist.  Killing the baby does not unrape the woman.  An innocent bystander should not die because of someone else's dire situation.  It is also worth pointing out that less than 1% of abortions are a result of rape and 6% are actually necessary to save the mother's life.  If abortion because of rape was justified, it would not justify the other 93%. Dtm142 17:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * DTM? I kind of figured out that those circumstances are so few and far between. However I would support your stance on the state being able to help/control in regards to abortion if and only if there was a clause to have it allowed to save the mother's life. Unfortunately that would and could also cover the abortion by rape, due to the fact nobody knows what the crime would do to the mother's psyche. I.E.: I've known of a few who have tried to attempt (and one attempt suceed) suicide due to either lack of response from law enforcement, or law enforcement being the perpetrator. I agree with most of what you say, however that has been, and will always be a bane of contentment...that most religious organizations state that there should be no abortion even if the mother and child should/would die. --Eternalseed 17:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wejer? It has still been a pleasure to make your acquaintance. 15:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear. I am pleased to say that I feel the same about you. Come back anytime! [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding me to your list.


 * Mentally unstable people such as victims of rape and incest could actually end up worse off (more likely to end their lives) if they had the abortion than if they carried the baby to term. In addition, one does not lose their humanity (or human rights) if they are a product of rape or incest.  If the rape victim chooses to carry the baby to term but has a mental breakdown a few years later, they are not allowed to kill the child because it is human regardless of how it was conceived. Dtm142 23:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You will be added to the list regardless if you agree with my positions or not. The only thing I ask is of you is that your arguments are reasonably valid (even if I don't agree with your positions all the time).


 * However, I still do not think it would be positive for society as a whole if the state decided what is the best for the female body. (Although, personally I think that you should avoid getting pregnant in the first place. Sex education wouldn't be such a bad idea, no?) [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * DTM? Never did I state that the person lost their humanity. I am just stating, that though I am Christian and prefer the child be carried to term, I understand when sometimes it is not medically or emotionally ok to do so. Wejer? You can train a child in the way they can go, but unless the child is willing to accept instruction, you cannot guarantee the child will listen.  Gentlemen, it has been my pleasure to meet you both  in conversation. I hope to meet with / interact with you both in game as well. --Eternalseed 15:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can train a child in the way they can go, but unless the child is willing to accept instruction, you cannot guarantee the child will listen. - I like that saying of yours, although I don't get what you are hinting at. Perhaps you could explain it to me in-game? My wiki name = my runescape name. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 16:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think his point is something along the lines of "you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink." (please clarify if I've misinterpreted, it isn't my point). Society can teach as much as it wants to, but ultimately it will be up to the student to decide whether they are actually going to learn/benefit from the instruction.  In this situation, some people will still get pregnant even if there is sex education.


 * The purpose of this type of law is not for the state to control what is best for the female body. It is to protect the human rights of all people, including the unborn.  The fetus is not part of the female body, it is a separate human.  If a woman wants to cut off her toe for whatever reason, she can go right ahead.  But if her actions involve ending another human's life, the state must intervene.  Death is not a private matter. Dtm142 22:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dtm for trying to help out, although I believe (and much would prefer) that Eternalseed explain for himself the meaning of his words, unless he himself admits that he cannot give a satisfactory explanation.


 * How cannot an unborn baby be part of the female body? Biologically, the baby is fed through a navel string, which is attached to the mother. It is very clear from empirical evidence that if the navel string is severed, the biological link with the mother is gone, and the baby dies. Regardless if the baby is an individual human being or not, it is still a biological part of the mother. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dtm got it right. It was a paraphrase of the biblical staatement "Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it." I'm just dealing with some issues right now and didn't respond earlier.


 * Wejer? Dtm is referring to the fact that at the moment of conception a child has a soul, and though they have not been born they are their own body. My personal beliefs on this I don't go into, though here's the thing...you're both right in one thing. Dtm's right due to the fact that, from a spritual standpoint, the child is separate from the mother in her womb. From a biological standpoint, you're right, because the mother still gives sustinence and attached to the parent, the child is, via an umbilical cord. Eternalseed 18:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe what is annoying me so much is that sometimes, some christians argue that the right thing to do is to act in the wishes of their God, always. Problem is that there are non-religious people (like me), who don't believe in God. Because of that, the whole argument against many of the religious issues falls with them. And then we (atheists, agnostics etc.) are blamed for being immoral! (As if christianity had a monopoly on philosophy and ethics... in reality it is a personal issue)
 * Although not all christians are like that, it is frustrating me nonetheless. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 19:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wejer? Christians are required to defend the defenseless and to be as 'wise as serpents and as gentle as doves'. I am sorry you've had bad experiences with some of my brethern. I am also aware of the hypocrites which are wearing the trappings of Christianity when the only god they worship is themselves. However, that was both sides of the coin there, as to how you and DTM are right in this situation. Oh well. 19:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eternalseed, your open mind is noted and appreciated. It is an honour to speak with you. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to add to the above conversation, it's of course worth noting that from conception, the unborn child has its own set of 46(?) individual human chromosomes. It is a unique individual. The biological (as opposed to mechanical) life support system for the person unable to care for him/herself does not subtract from the fetus' humanity. To bring up an analogy that I think was mentioned much farther up the talk page, saying a fetus being part of the mother's body because it is biologically dependent on it is like saying someone who is on life support is a part of the machine that is pumping oxygen into their lungs and nutrients into their stomach. What I'm saying makes sense, right? 20:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perfect sense, Rendova. Hence where DTM and you come from (and past the fifth week, myself) is this...conception onward the person has their own soul as well as their own chromosomes. From Wejer's point of view...the fetus is reliant on it's mother for biological survival. Thanks. My head hurt to bring that point up as well. 20:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!!!!!!!!
00:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Your Sig
I was able to modify the signature you requested by using a different scroll as the one you wanted had no transparency on it. How about this:

<font color="White">Wejer

<font color="White">Wejer

08:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

How kind of you, and many thanks :) However, I must say that I have grown rather attached to my old signature and will continue to use it. <font color="White">Wejer    22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello
I see you've been discussing politics with other users. I took the political compass test a long time ago, and I got -2.75 (economic left) and -4.15 (social libertarian). I'm only 13 years old, so not sure what to think of anything really, although I already have a strong pro-gay rights stance and I have already decided I am atheist. Seems I'm going to be a democrat when I get older. I was wondering, what are some of the big political "issues"? I need to take a side on them and you seem like a good person to talk to about this. I really enjoyed reading your conversations here, although I didn't understand most of it. 02:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello InstantWinston, and welcome. Not many people of your age take active stances when it comes to philosophy and politics, and it never hurts thinking about these things early. Besides, you can do the political compass test as many times as you like, because it is not rock-hard in any way (from personal experience I know that you tend to move around a bit, both short-term and long-term).

If you are looking for "big political issues" I suggest you grab a normal morning newspaper and scan it for any interesting topics. When you have found one, ask yourself the two big questions:


 * Who is talking? Is it a politician, businessman, lobbyist, independant scientist? etc.
 * What are their interests? Are they looking for your vote, your money or spreading their beliefs?

If you can answer those two, and tend to keep an open mind, you are relatively safe and sound.

Feel free to drop by any time if you have any questions. <font color="White">Wejer   22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

My Political Views
Ok, so you seem to be similar in some respects and not others. Here's mine: http://www.politicalcompass.org/printablegraph?ec=-7.75&soc=-6.56

I disagree with your economic policy. I don't think that profit should be the grounding objective of a person. If you believe this, then you can be held responsible for the boom/bust economic climate since capitalism became the status quo. The drive of individuals to personal wealth incites them to find new ways to make money. Now thats fine, but money is limited. This either leads to inflation - everyone has more money, but actually the value of everyone is the same OR distortion of world - exploitation of others.

Now we currently believe that inflation is the expected answer. That's fine. But sooner or later someone realises that to actually improve they need to do more than gain money. To actually improve you need to gain money faster than everyone else is. So they bend the rules. Hence some stockbrokers bent the rules to enable their company and hence them to become richer. So that left the banks with assets that they couldn't retrieve the money from. This leaves them unrecoverable debt and as such the credit crunch.

This isn't a new problem. In 1929 people bought shares beyond their means and when suddenly people asked 'is a 1 man business really worth this much', the same thing happened.

This is the systematic problem with capitalist countries. And every time they break down, the government steps in with a socialist measure, totally undermining the point of having a capitalist system. The Bail-Out, The New Deal. Obama's policy of getting people to help on civilian projects is more or less the same as Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps.

Incidently Roosevelt created Fannie Mae. It was then privatised by the Republicans but now bought back.... The signs are there. Capitalism is broke.

Thanks for reading ~ King Runite1 13:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I'll admit that Global Warming is over-hyped, but Peak oil is a realistic possibility, so we do need to limit the oil usage anyway. I've always thought that if there is a clean and harmless way to do something and a way that isn't, one should pick the clean and harmless path, so for me, going green is a no-brainer. I don't think carbon credits and bio-fuels is the answer. King Runite1 14:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PPS: Final point. I'm not going to be pulled into the pro-life/pro-choice argument. Personally I think that a child badly brought up is a bad place to be. I'm pro-choice (pro-death?) and not pro-life (pro-forced?). King Runite1 14:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello King Runite1, and welcome to my talk page.

I am glad you have taken an interest in national economic policies, but must none the less disagree with some of your views.

The main point of having a capitalist system is not for everyone to have more money. As you say yourself, that would be pretty ridicolous. That is why economies based on printing more money constantly ultimately fail. The socialist economy of Zimbabwe may give us some clues why this is.

No, the main point is effectivization. When businessmen want to sell their product, they must make it more attractive than the product of their competitors. Otherwise, they would just lose money and have to shut down. This 'greed' and 'egoism' thus spurs invention! Ultimately this could lead to a lot of different things, from cheaper production costs, a higher quality product or even better wages for workers in 3rd world countries (ever heard of fair trade? That's capitalism in action!). When I claim that free trade will increase the standard of living for everyone, I am not kidding. Protectionism is probably the biggest reason why 3rd country people are forced to live on such small wages. If the market was free, those people would choose a better work place, with better wages and less working hours!

When you claim that some stockbrokers are idiots I must agree with you. However, that is NOT a reason to cover up their asses with taxpayers' money. Teach them to handle their money responsibly, instead of encouraging them to repeat their mistakes! A true capitalist would make those stockbrokers take full responability for their freedom of action.

<font color="White">Wejer   11:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I missed out to answer your PSs. How silly of me.


 * Thing is that I don't like fossil fuels that much myself. Even if I don't think they contribute much to global warming, I still think that the acid rain and global dimming they produce is bad enough. That is why I like nuclear power, because it's cheap and (relatively) safe if handled responsibly. Solar and wind power are of course renewable (a good thing), however, the electricity isn't cheap, the solar panels have toxins in them and the wind turbines are noisy and ugly. Naturally, more research into renewable sources would increase efficiency, but the same is true of nuclear power. Until the day comes when renewable energy becomes a more realistic option, I think we shall stick with cheap energy sources like nuclear power.
 * Your stance on abortion seems quite close to my own one, that it is the woman herself that shall decide over what to do with her body. However, the conservatives have a point when they say abortion could be substituted with adoption. Even so, I think that ultimately it is her choice what to do with her baby.

<font color="White">Wejer   11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No you are wrong. Fair trade isn't capitalism. It's a socialist invention designed to undermine the capitalist system which seeks to exploit whatever it can in order to reduce costs. The capitalist system led to the introduction of the set-up which benefits a specific sub-group of producers. One example of this is the EU trade committees and the French 'wine lake'. Exploiting a group of workers is common capitalist policy. It used to be black slaves, now it's Chinese and LEDC country citizens.


 * "Protectionism is probably the biggest reason why 3rd country people are forced to live on such small wages." Protectionism is the capitalist's method of defending their market share. Protectionism is NOT socialist policy. I'd be the first to abolish it.


 * The stockbrokers are not idiots. They are exploiting a weakness in the system. They are incredibly clever and I salute them for it. One man (George Soros) managed to bankrupt the British economy gaining more than $1 billion dollars on Black Wednesday. He's not an idiot. He's living proof that capitalist systems are broke.


 * "Teach them to handle their money responsibly, instead of encouraging them to repeat their mistakes! A true capitalist would make those stockbrokers take full responability for their freedom of action"


 * How do you teach someone who's probably still going to get millions in bonuses. How do you teach a system which, if it collapsed, every single person with a mortgage would be doomed. How do you teach a system, which is, beyond the reach of the government's control to a large extent. It's got so bad, that in Iceland, the country's GDP is less than the debt of their banks! Bonuses have been so absurd that one bank's employees could have actually bought their bank on the stock exchange just through bonuses!


 * Regarding the fossil fuel scenario. There are plenty of places to put solar panels and wind farms. We have an uninhabited desert in Africa, covering that in said technology would provide vast amounts of electricity that can be transmitted on power lines wherever. The price issue is irrelevant. It's expensive because it's rarely used. This is a prime example of the capitalist market that should decrease the price as it's bought. But no-one can be forced to drop the price through capitalist methods.


 * I'm not really that strong on abortion, mainly because the right answer is neither abortion nor adoption, but the prevention in the first place.

~ King Runite1 12:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't seem like we speak the same language. Perhaps I shall try and clarify.


 * When I say that fair trade is a example of capitalism I mean that it has become a product of supply and demand. Generally, if a product has a fair trade sticker on it, it is seen as positive, because it helps sell the product. Now, when you say that fair trade is a product of socialism, I can relate to that, because the essence of socialism is wealth redistribution. However, the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism (as I know it) is often enforced top-down by a couple of "enlightened" rulers while capitalism (as I know it) is enforced bottom-up by individuals who govern themselves. Because the Fair Trade organization was formed on voluntary basis and not by a government agency, I can claim that it is a product of capitalism. This is regardless of how much wealth redisribution the fair trade practice generates, because capitalism tolerates any amount of wealth redistribution as long as it is voluntary.


 * I don't know where you fished up the statement that "Protectionism is the capitalist's method of defending their market share". However, I am glad that you agree with me on the issue. Let us abolish protectionism together!


 * Indeed, stock brokers are not stupid. I apologize for that rude comment. However, I must admit I have never heard about the Black Wednesday, so I can not give you any through in-debt analysis up-front I am afraid. However, from initial glance it seems that Mr. Soros is nothing more than a criminal, and deserves punishment and not a salute. By the way, shouldn't a massive wealth redistribution in favour of "the rich" bother socialists like you? Just curious.


 * I am not going to discuss any outragous bonuses some companies choose to give their directors. That is up to them. Short to say, if salaries in a company do not correspond to the work they provide, they will pretty quickly fail anyway, because of loss of profits. Other, more adaptive companies on the free market will take over instead. As competition increases we witness how former giant monopolies come crashing down, only to be replaced by companies who give products and services of higher quality and lower price. This is progress, and it is desirable because it leads to a better world for all of us. (And it will probably also lead to less differences in salaries, so socialists should be happy of this surely?)


 * Priceing and efficiency is very important, and this is true of energy issues as well. I will illustrate this with a hypothethical scenario:


 * Mr. A and Mr. B are both workers at the same office. However, Mr A works more effectively than Mr B (Mr B is an average worker. Also notice that I say "effectively" not "harder"). In fact, Mr A works so effectively that he can finish his chores 1 hour before Mr B is finished. His employer has noticed this, but instead of increasing his salary (which the employer cannot afford in this scenario), he allows Mr A to take 1 hour off every day.


 * One passion of Mr A is charity work. Specifically, he likes to work with treating drug addicts. After each work day, he voluntarily takes 1 hour off in order to tend for these needy individuals. He one day realises that he wouldn't have had the time to do his voluntary work if he didn't work so efficiently that he finished his chores 1 hour before anybody else.


 * Conclusion: By spending less work to gain acces to our energy (or in Mr A's case, his salary), we will have more time to do other things (in Mr A's case, charity work). Thus we should use the most effective energy source we can (with some reservations, of course).


 * You claim that "the capitalist market should decrease the price as it's bought". This is a misunderstanding. Increased demand means that the product or service is more sought-after. The general reaction to this is that price goes up. Long-term, this leads to increased supplies (more of the product is produced). If the supplies are higher than is sought after by the market, the market price goes down and stabilizies. If you have any questions about this supply and demand theory don't hesitate to ask.


 * I agree personally with you on what is best when it comes to abortion, although I think it is for the best if that desiscion is taken by the individual and not top-down from above.


 * Thank you for your time. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 16:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Responses

 * I've bulleted my answers to every section.

When I say that fair trade is a example of capitalism I mean that it has become a product of supply and demand. Generally, if a product has a fair trade sticker on it, it is seen as positive, because it helps sell the product. Now, when you say that fair trade is a product of socialism, I can relate to that, because the essence of socialism is wealth redistribution. However, the main difference between socialism and capitalism is that socialism (as I know it) is often enforced top-down by a couple of "enlightened" rulers while capitalism (as I know it) is enforced bottom-up by individuals who govern themselves. Because the Fair Trade organization was formed on voluntary basis and not by a government agency, I can claim that it is a product of capitalism. This is regardless of how much wealth redisribution the fair trade practice generates, because capitalism tolerates any amount of wealth redistribution as long as it is voluntary.


 * Ah... No. You are confusing the style of leadership with the policies they enforce. Socialism is about the equality of people. Socialism is not about the way it has been implemented. Unfortunately the most socialist policies are typically advocated by extreeme governments in order to get into power (the extreeme right does this as well). Once in power, the leadership is a dictatorship, the top-down style you note. Stalinist Russia and former Chinese both advocated socialist policies. However, when in power they were not liberal, rather the opposite. Liberal communism works, the other doesnt.


 * Capitalism has nothing to do with up-down and down-up. That is the liberal and conservative factor. Capitalism is merely an idea of assignment of wealth. The enforcement is not related to the capitalist/socialist idea.


 * Again this is not exclusively a socialist policy. Mahatma Gandhi is the closest real-world political leader representing my political beliefs. No-one can claim he was a dictator. He created a peaceful overthrow of a domineering British military presence.


 * The idea that you can claim that Fair Trade is a product of capitalism is absurd. It is a product of a socialist society undermining the existing capitalist system to support the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism itself doesn't tolerate voluntary wealth distribution, this is a socio-liberal allowance present in a government that isn't hardline capitalism.

I don't know where you fished up the statement that "Protectionism is the capitalist's method of defending their market share". However, I am glad that you agree with me on the issue. Let us abolish protectionism together!


 * Easy. Capitalist countries wish to defend their interests, at whatever costs. Protectionism is the method they use - making it harder for countries from the outside to sell products (of equal value and quality - often better!) to them.

Indeed, stock brokers are not stupid. I apologize for that rude comment. However, I must admit I have never heard about the Black Wednesday, so I can not give you any through in-debt analysis up-front I am afraid. However, from initial glance it seems that Mr. Soros is nothing more than a criminal, and deserves punishment and not a salute. By the way, shouldn't a massive wealth redistribution in favour of "the rich" bother socialists like you? Just curious.


 * It does bother me. Indeed that someone is able to become extreemely rich is not a nice thought. Does anyone really think that Bill Gates as a person is worth his fortune, when you realise how little some LEDC people get. However, Mr. Soros and Bill Gates both legitimately earned their fortunes at the expense of others. Mr. Soros helped the UK into a recession lasting half a decade. Bill Gates is perhaps less obvious - many people call him a philanthropist but if you look at the money donated compared to how much he gets. Indeed people like him ONLY donate to charity because it creates a good public image, which in turn benefits their sales and hence, they probably gain more than they donate.

I am not going to discuss any outragous bonuses some companies choose to give their directors. That is up to them. Short to say, if salaries in a company do not correspond to the work they provide, they will pretty quickly fail anyway, because of loss of profits. Other, more adaptive companies on the free market will take over instead. As competition increases we witness how former giant monopolies come crashing down, only to be replaced by companies who give products and services of higher quality and lower price. This is progress, and it is desirable because it leads to a better world for all of us. (And it will probably also lead to less differences in salaries, so socialists should be happy of this surely?)


 * Competition only exists because of the Competition Commissions, a liberal/socialist attempt to prevent the existants of an unelected set of people that can control a country. IMHO, the largest problem as we see at the moment, is that when these huge capitalist organisations fail, it is up to the government to protect them. The simple fact is that if a large bank goes under, huge numbers of people have no house or job and so on. So the governments (like today) are using socialist principles to back up capitalist mistakes. But note that the problem is not the socialist fix (the bailouts), but the capitalist set-up initally.

Priceing and efficiency is very important, and this is true of energy issues as well. I will illustrate this with a hypothethical scenario: Mr. A and Mr. B are both workers at the same office. However, Mr A works more effectively than Mr B (Mr B is an average worker. Also notice that I say "effectively" not "harder"). In fact, Mr A works so effectively that he can finish his chores 1 hour before Mr B is finished. His employer has noticed this, but instead of increasing his salary (which the employer cannot afford in this scenario), he allows Mr A to take 1 hour off every day. One passion of Mr A is charity work. Specifically, he likes to work with treating drug addicts. After each work day, he voluntarily takes 1 hour off in order to tend for these needy individuals. He one day realises that he wouldn't have had the time to do his voluntary work if he didn't work so efficiently that he finished his chores 1 hour before anybody else. Conclusion: By spending less work to gain acces to our energy (or in Mr A's case, his salary), we will have more time to do other things (in Mr A's case, charity work). Thus we should use the most effective energy source we can (with some reservations, of course).


 * I'd like to discuss this. However, I disagree with the existence of charities. They are largely a waste of resources. Charities, IMHO are a failing of the government to intervene with the correct policy (typically liberal in nature). Again this example shows that underneath the system, we are liberal people, trying to benefit others in a socialist way - helping those less fortunate than ourselves - in otherwords providing underground socialist systems where in effect the problem is the capitalism surround.
 * PS: I did actually answer this one. I realised that by not answering I wouldn't be able to justify my position. So I've striken the first sentence and a bit, which changes the meaning of the second sufficiently. King Runite1 21:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You claim that "the capitalist market should decrease the price as it's bought". This is a misunderstanding. Increased demand means that the product or service is more sought-after. The general reaction to this is that price goes up. Long-term, this leads to increased supplies (more of the product is produced). If the supplies are higher than is sought after by the market, the market price goes down and stabilizies. If you have any questions about this supply and demand theory don't hesitate to ask. I agree personally with you on what is best when it comes to abortion, although I think it is for the best if that desiscion is taken by the individual and not top-down from above. Thank you for your time.


 * Heh, I did Business (Still do some). Supply and Demand is all well and good, but the competition in the market (is there any? perhaps a socialist competition commision should intervene - they don't because it's 'not a key market'), should reduce this effect. The supply of the materials, is I understand, not an issue.
 * Mass Production should have a far greater impact. For example, the car, when invented, was a luxury for the very rich. However, despite the demand being the same, and the supply of the materials used to make them, the price of a car has vastly decreased (in comparison to the average income of a typical person). This should be the same for the solar panels.


 * Don't worry, it's been a brilliant discussion so far :) King Runite1 20:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That's one extensive reply you have made. I will make sure to have a proper look at it tomorrow. Until then, good night. [[Image:'s_scroll.png]] <font color="White">Wejer  [[Image:Feather.PNG]] 21:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

About the jungle of words
It is clear that the way we use our words is different. I will begin by clarifying myself. Then I will (try to) clarify you:


 * Capitalism - (For me): Free-market economics/classical liberalism forwarded by philosophers like Ayn Rand and Adam Smith; (For you): Red-neck-economics à la USA, "extreme right"
 * Socialism - (For me): (Often state-sanctioned) interventions into the market with the aim of a planned economy (ie abolishing private property etc.); (For you) Any form of wealth-redistribution, voluntarily or not + abolition of private property.
 * Communist state - (For me): A dictatorship with a planned economy (like Cuba, but not China); (For you) Any state sufficiently left-wing, regardless of social policies
 * Fair trade - (For me): A product/service that free individuals may spend their private property on; (For you): A hidden conspiracy to undermine (your defenition of) the capitalist system
 * Protectionism - (For me): A state-intervention into the free market, a step towards the planned economy (my defnition of socialism); (For you) Proof that red-neck-economics cannot compete with left-wing economics and thus try to cement their standing through force (ie by making a closed market, mercantilism).
 * Competition - (For me): The logical result of a free market; (For you): The invention of Competition Commisions (?) (help me here!)

As you can see, me trying to define you may not be 100% adequate. Btw, may I call you a syndicalist? It seems like your "utopia" is not very far from theirs. <font color="White">Wejer   08:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)