Comments for Earth King

Comment on Michelle Obama Hot??? by earthking

earthking — Sun, 24 May 2009 04:45:50 +0000

People are nice in Kentucky. You’ll do fine. Keep up the good work.

Comment on Michelle Obama Hot??? by Jeremy Climer

Jeremy Climer — Sat, 23 May 2009 02:48:54 +0000

I tried to reply to your post on my blog but it wouldn’t let me for some reason… thanks, I’ve enjoyed our little debates – I’m going to link yoour blog as well. Hope all is well and keep up the fight for me when I head to Kentucky.

Comment on The Secret to Good Arguments by joan

joan — Tue, 19 May 2009 15:34:22 +0000

Really interesting blog thanks!

Comment on The Secret to Good Arguments by dam

dam — Wed, 13 May 2009 01:41:21 +0000

This is a very interesting post, especially this: “To win any debate, you MUST have arguments that inspire fear, hope, pity, or hatred within the audience.”

It always irked me that the conservatives (and shows like Fox News) use fear to prod people. But Obama did win on hope.

So, your argument that there is an element of logic as well as of emotion appears to be…logical.

Comment on Global Peace- Pax Terrae by earthking

earthking — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:06:31 +0000

I was unaware that Kant wrote on this. I will have to check that piece out. Thanks.

Comment on The Death of Marriage by earthking

earthking — Tue, 12 May 2009 18:05:59 +0000

While I can understand that homosexual acts will not change whether or not gays can marry, by allowing gays to marry, the state effectively approves this type of behavior. I may one day concede that it is up to the states and not the federal government to pass laws on this. Obviously there would be issues with states not recognizing another state’s gay marriage. I just don’t think the federal government should be putting a stamp of approval on that kind of behavior. Many, many people think it is wrong, and the voice of the people should be followed.

Comment on God/Philosophy versus Science by Scott Erb

Scott Erb — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:50:45 +0000

I do not believe any one particular religion. I do believe it is perfectly rational and scientific to conclude that given the evidence available, there is absolutely no reason to think that material processes alone can explain everything. Space-time was created at the big bang — science is, in that sense, creationist. We can’t comprehend what came before that since we can only think in terms of space-time. If a “God” (however one conceives God) exists outside of space-time, that entity would literally be un-imaginable and unconceivable to us, and simply outside the ability of science to either test, prove or disprove.

Look into quantum mechanics and modern physics (I recommend Brian Greene’s “The Fabric of the Cosmos”), and the strange and bizarre nature of the world science studies shows the limits of materialist determinism. To believe there is nothing outside of material impersonal processes (i.e., processes without some sort of will or intellect behind them) takes a leap of faith far greater than that of a religious believer. (For my own take on religion see: http://scotterb.wordpress.com/faith-and-philosophy/)

Comment on The Death of Marriage by Scott Erb

Scott Erb — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:43:06 +0000

I have no problem with gay marriage — how does it affect anyone if the gay couple down the street is legally married or simply acting like they are without a certificate from the state? However, the issue of divorce is complex. It is common because of cultural changes — some good, some very bad — and a shift in viewing marriage as a commitment and hard work to something that should bring happiness (partners want their partner to ‘make them happy’ — which is impossible.) It is the same cultural change that brought rampant materialism and consumerism (selfishness) which has caused the current economic crisis. In some cases, divorce is necessary. And before kids are born, there is little harm done. But once a couple has children, unless one is unrepentantly abusive, I think they have a moral obligation to work to keep the family together.

Comment on Global Peace- Pax Terrae by Scott Erb

Scott Erb — Tue, 12 May 2009 02:34:51 +0000

Immanuel Kant wrote “Perpetual Peace” back in the late 18th century, arguing that it was possible to have long term peace. He assumed that if people did not go to war, they’d be better off and able to cooperate. Thus, peace would be stable because it would have superior results. To get it, the first thing one would need would be more or less democratic republics. The people had to be in power because small groups of elites can always benefit from conflict, even if everyone else is worse off. Second, you’d need a small group of states willing to create a “pacific alliance’ to try to demonstrate the efficacy of this approach.

They each could have smaller militaries because they’d practice collective security — an attack on one is an attack on all. They’d be able to defend themselves from the outside through cooperation, and then internally be successful, prosperous and cooperative. Their success would be envied by other states and people, and over time this alliance would grow — not through force, but by people wanting to join.

It’s possible — peace is more common than war, military conflict is far rarer than the peaceful resolution of disputes. Yet vast amounts of money are spent because of fear that some dispute may turn violent, and elites are often willing to play with the money and lives of common folk. It won’t be easy.

Comment on Stem Cell Debate by With This Diet I Lost T h i r t y P o u n d s in Under a Month

With This Diet I Lost T h i r t y P o u n d s in Under a Month — Wed, 06 May 2009 11:07:11 +0000

Hi, cool post. I have been thinking about this issue,so thanks for writing. I will likely be coming back to your posts. Keep up great writing