Welcome

We like to discuss everything. Everything includes current events, law, politics, economics, sports, religion and philosophy. There are plenty of websites and blogs all over the internet where these issues are discussed; however, we are attempting to create one where opposing arguments are displayed together and the point of view is not already predetermined. On this blog we will make an attempt to allow the reader to form his/her own opinion. Comments and discussion are encouraged as we believe that friendly debate is the best way to learn. The goal of such conversations, therefore, should be to educate oneself rather than to prove others wrong. So enjoy the posts and let's discuss, not argue.
Showing posts with label General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General. Show all posts

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Renaissance - Rebirth


This blog is undergoing a Renaissance. It's spring, the season of rebirth. The Renaissance period in history is synonymous with the Age of Enlightenment or the Age of Reason.

We at Discuss Not Argue (DNA) like Reason and Enlightenment. I am even considering changing the name of this blog to Reason Renaissance (or something like that). So this post commemorates the Rebirth of Discuss Not Argue.

I am sorry for neglecting this blog for so long. That will no longer be the case. Consider this post a renewal and a mission statement.

This blog is dedicated to a rebirth of rationality. This blog believes in the Truth. The Truth is neither right nor wrong. There is no right or wrong, there is simply a lack of understanding. This blog is a forum to discuss, not argue, our inevitably divergent views so that we may learn from each other and come to an understanding about how we may proceed in light of the Truth with the goal of overall utility for our world, our country, and our communities.

I hope you will join us regularly. Thank you.

Thursday, January 8, 2009

The Bush Legacy

torture.jpg Torture: Yes We Did image by vawolf1974

There've been a plethora of Blogs, Op-Eds, and articles such as this Time piece popping up all over the internet calling for legal action against President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and other high-ranking members considered authors of The Bush Doctrine. "The United States of America does not torture," Bush told us with as straight a face as he can achieve. But that was clearly a lie, and the atrocities that have (and probably are) taking place in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and most recently at Bagram, Afghanistan (discussed in this Time article) are stains on America that will outlive the Bush Presidency if the next Administration does not address the situation.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

I Like Boobs, but Facebook Doesn't...and Sheltering Parents and Gay Rights


After reading this article on Time Magazine's online site, I wanted to put forth for discussion people's opinions on Breast Feeding etiquette. The article talks about Facebook's "war against breasts," remarking how "plunging necklines or string bikinis are fine — just no nips." They go on to talk about how this has certain people upset, and how "by Dec. 30, more than 85,000 members had joined a Facebook group called 'Hey, Facebook, breastfeeding is not obscene!'"
Now I'd agree that breast feeding is not obscene. But there are solid arguments for people who just don't want exposed breasts in public places. Personally, I don't find viewing of any breast offensive. I think most laws or rules against public exposure is intended mostly to shelter children. Young children are going to learn all about breasts and breast feeding at a younger age than their parents would hope, regardless. But I understand those who say, "Hey! I don't want to have to explain to my three year old why this woman has her tit sticking out and in her babies mouth until I'm ready to. So please, woman, cover it up!"
But restricting where women are allowed to nurse their babies would set a terrible standard and be the beginning of a slippery slope, especially if the reason is to shelter children. To "shelter children" is really to shelter parents from having to explain things to their children when they're not ready or willing to. If it is allowed as a legitimate reason to restrict people's actions reduce certain liberties, then it could just as easily be used to defend a position against Gay Marriage or public displays of homosexuality.
A friend of mine told me how one of her son's classmates (he's six years old) has gay parents (two dads). About a week after learning this, her son came home and declared that he and one of his male classmates want to adopt another of his classmates and make a family. "Uh...now what?" I don't know, and my friend didn't know what to say either.

One could argue: "I don't want to have to explain to my little boy or girl why those two men are kissing. I have nothing against homosexuals. I don't think it's unnatural or immoral or any of that nonsense. But strictly for biological reasons, I want my progeny to pass on my DNA and they cannot do so if they are gay. I don't want my child exposed to homosexuality at a young age; if they learn about it later then they can decide for themselves if they think it is right or wrong or for them or not. Whatever the case may be later, while my child is young and impressionable, I don't want him growing up in a 'gay' environment."
So, is sheltering parents from having to explain "tough ones" such as "what is that baby sucking on?" to young children a legitimate reason to restrict breast feeding? What about Gay Marriage? Is avoiding the question "Why does Jimmy have two dads?" a legitimate reason to prevent Gay Marriages?
Please, let me know what you think by commenting below.