314
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 146:
Line 146: + + + + + +
Debate:Is religion morally wrong? (view source)
Revision as of 16:50, April 23, 2007
, 16:50, April 23, 2007no edit summary
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".
:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?
:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==No==
==No==
No, but it's logically and philosophically flawed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
No, but it's logically and philosophically flawed. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 14:10, 16 April 2007 (EDT)