Where do you stand politically?

Where do you stand politically?

  • Far left

  • Left

  • Center Left

  • Center

  • Center Right

  • Right

  • Far Right

  • I dont know

  • I dont talk about politics ever, and dont care to ever

  • Rather not say


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Carer
You are indeed correct, however having more resources for a structure, means a structure can be far more complex in design. That is the choice of the rich after all, and who doesn't like the average, middle class house? With spacious living rooms, bedrooms big enough to swing a cat, and bespoke kitchens that even come with an island.
I, for one, don't like middle-class homes. There's so much available to you in the architecture and interior design, why waste the money on uninspired boxy rooms if you can afford something more highbrow?
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
400
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
I, for one, don't like middle-class homes. There's so much available to you in the architecture and interior design, why waste the money on uninspired boxy rooms if you can afford something more highbrow?
Because it is meant to feel like a home, where you live, where you sleep, where you eat and with any hope die peacefully with your relatives around you, intellectual design isn't needed, it is more about comfort.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Carer
Because it is meant to feel like a home, where you live, where you sleep, where you eat and with any hope die peacefully with your relatives around you, intellectual design isn't needed, it is more about comfort.
Taller ceilings, arched ceilings, well integrated conservatories, skylights for interior plants, sunken living rooms, stonework, etc. are very cozy!
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
400
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Taller ceilings, arched ceilings, well integrated conservatories, skylights for interior plants, sunken living rooms, stonework, etc. are very cozy!
The only thing I'll agree with on there is the conservatory, everything else is silly, taller ceilings for example just mean you'll be colder.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Carer
The only thing I'll agree with on there is the conservatory, everything else is silly, taller ceilings for example just mean you'll be colder.
Tall ceilings are great in the summer. During the winter you can just turn the heat on or light a fireplace--even comfier!
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
the pyramids, St Louis arch, Washington monument, statue of liberty, grand central station (people visiting in NY tend to have an interest to visit the worlds biggest subway station) Also about that, should be noted "Grand Central Terminal is one of the world's ten most visited tourist attractions"
Sears tower (or w/e name it is now), john Hancock (do not need to be the worlds tallest to have people visit them) Niagara Falls.. need I go on?

You do not need religion to be inspiring, it helps sure but SgtOddball is right with this debate.
 
Last edited:

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Carer
the pyramids, St Louis arch, Washington monument, statue of liberty, grand central station (people visiting in NY tend to have an interest to visit the worlds biggest subway station) Also about that, should be noted "Grand Central Terminal is one of the world's ten most visited tourist attractions"
Sears tower (or w/e name it is now), john Hancock (do not need to be the worlds tallest to have people visit them) Niagara Falls.. need I go on?

You do not need religion to be inspiring, it helps sure but SgtOddball is right with this debate.
It would have been nice if you had actually read through the debate. Almost everything you listed aren't contemporary architecture, so that's a non-sequitur to begin with. I did forget about Sears tower with their tourist attraction at the top where you can sort of lean over the edge and look down for a cheap thrill, but that's moving the goalpost of the conversation way from architecture.
 

ZetaSonic

Est. Contributor
Messages
159
Role
Diaper Lover
So you can't really say that Christianity has had benefits when it, along with the many other religions, is primarily responsible for the many wars, and the murder of innocent people (remember the fiasco with the witches or the Spanish inquisition?) around the world.
Technically speaking, the death toll of the Inquisition didn't break 3,000 according to most sources. Pol Pot racked up a body count one thousand times greater in less time.

Furthermore, while you're correct about the Crusades being a response to the rise of Islam, it's difficult to come up with wars where the international Church was the direct cause. Logically speaking, wars are more likely to break out over resources or ideological differences.
 

StrangelyShapedTree

Est. Contributor
Messages
462
Role
Diaper Lover
Culturally I am very conservative; I am trying to be a chaste Christian to the point that I rarely ever wear anymore, even though I do not think it would be a problem in marriage if the spouse is ok with it...economically I'd also say pretty conservative.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
It would have been nice if you had actually read through the debate. Almost everything you listed aren't contemporary architecture, so that's a non-sequitur to begin with. I did forget about Sears tower with their tourist attraction at the top where you can sort of lean over the edge and look down for a cheap thrill, but that's moving the goalpost of the conversation way from architecture.
I got a feeling you don't know what that means what you think it means:

Unlike modern architecture, which is defined as the building style during the early to mid-twentieth century, Contemporary architecture refers to present-day building style. Because today’s architecture styles are numerous, it is difficult to come up with a formal or precise definition of contemporary architecture. Contemporary architects take into account the stark, clean lines and utilitarianism of Modern architecture and seek to design more personal buildings. New architecture makes use of oversized windows to invite an abundance of natural light and large open spaces, providing a sense of airiness. The buildings’ frames veer from symmetry, often being given unique shapes. Contemporary architects focus on eco-friendly designs that are energy efficient and incorporate recycled materials. It is becoming common to see plants adorning the roofs of buildings for increased energy efficiency and improved outdoor air quality. Natural materials are being used inside today’s edifices, and blending buildings with the natural surroundings or repurposing existing buildings are also common themes. The use of concrete can no longer be classified as Brutalism. Architects have realized the value of reinforced concrete in Contemporary structural design. Concrete can be shaped in almost any way imaginable to make aesthetically pleasing buildings, and it’s economical. Once it’s reinforced with a material like steel, it can be erected in ways other building materials can’t. Concrete can be mixed with recycled materials, such as broken glass to give it texture and sparkle, and it can be pigmented for subtle or vibrant color. From bridges to skyscrapers, concrete is versatile enough for the job. Computer-aided design sets Contemporary styles of architecture apart from previous styles. It allows architects to test fantastical designs for stability, efficiency, and durability. Computer software was used to create the unusual curves and shapes of the Guggenheim Museum built in Bilbao, Spain, in 1997. The museum is the work of Contemporary architect Frank Gehry, who has also been commissioned to design and build the Guggenheim Museum in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. The exciting building in Bilbao brings together limestone, titanium, and glass to form a structure that almost seems to move. Gehry is using computer-aided design to bring his daring creation to life in Abu Dhabi. He believes the open tracks of landscape combining desert and ocean afford the opportunity to create a building that would not be possible in Europe or the United States, and computers are helping him bring his plans to fruition. Another fine example of today’s architecture is the new Musee du Quai Branly in Paris. Designed by architect Jean Nouvel, the museum rests beside the Eiffel Tower and features mismatched buildings and Asian, African, and Oceanic art. It’s a refreshing sight nestled in a beautiful exotic garden on the Seine River. A glass wall was erected to separate the garden from the traffic on the other side, and one building is wallpapered in plants. Nouvel’s masterpiece almost breaks Parisian rules but instead gets rid of the rules altogether, just as all Contemporary architecture seems to do.
 

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Carer
I got a feeling you don't know what that means what you think it means:

Unlike modern architecture, which is defined as the building style during the early to mid-twentieth century, Contemporary architecture refers to present-day building style. Because today’s architecture styles are numerous, it is difficult to come up with a formal or precise definition of contemporary architecture. Contemporary architects take into account the stark, clean lines and utilitarianism of Modern architecture and seek to design more personal buildings. New architecture makes use of oversized windows to invite an abundance of natural light and large open spaces, providing a sense of airiness. The buildings’ frames veer from symmetry, often being given unique shapes. Contemporary architects focus on eco-friendly designs that are energy efficient and incorporate recycled materials. It is becoming common to see plants adorning the roofs of buildings for increased energy efficiency and improved outdoor air quality. Natural materials are being used inside today’s edifices, and blending buildings with the natural surroundings or repurposing existing buildings are also common themes. The use of concrete can no longer be classified as Brutalism. Architects have realized the value of reinforced concrete in Contemporary structural design. Concrete can be shaped in almost any way imaginable to make aesthetically pleasing buildings, and it’s economical. Once it’s reinforced with a material like steel, it can be erected in ways other building materials can’t. Concrete can be mixed with recycled materials, such as broken glass to give it texture and sparkle, and it can be pigmented for subtle or vibrant color. From bridges to skyscrapers, concrete is versatile enough for the job. Computer-aided design sets Contemporary styles of architecture apart from previous styles. It allows architects to test fantastical designs for stability, efficiency, and durability. Computer software was used to create the unusual curves and shapes of the Guggenheim Museum built in Bilbao, Spain, in 1997. The museum is the work of Contemporary architect Frank Gehry, who has also been commissioned to design and build the Guggenheim Museum in Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates. The exciting building in Bilbao brings together limestone, titanium, and glass to form a structure that almost seems to move. Gehry is using computer-aided design to bring his daring creation to life in Abu Dhabi. He believes the open tracks of landscape combining desert and ocean afford the opportunity to create a building that would not be possible in Europe or the United States, and computers are helping him bring his plans to fruition. Another fine example of today’s architecture is the new Musee du Quai Branly in Paris. Designed by architect Jean Nouvel, the museum rests beside the Eiffel Tower and features mismatched buildings and Asian, African, and Oceanic art. It’s a refreshing sight nestled in a beautiful exotic garden on the Seine River. A glass wall was erected to separate the garden from the traffic on the other side, and one building is wallpapered in plants. Nouvel’s masterpiece almost breaks Parisian rules but instead gets rid of the rules altogether, just as all Contemporary architecture seems to do.
No, I know exactly what it means and I meant exactly what I said. Frankly, I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish with your text wall. I'm very familiar with architecture and it seems nothing short of pretentious, not to mention unnecessesary, overreaching, and impolite.
 

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
No, I know exactly what it means and I meant exactly what I said. Frankly, I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish with your text wall. I'm very familiar with architecture and it seems nothing short of pretentious, not to mention unnecessesary, overreaching, and impolite.
um the first one that was being impolite is you, so I felt it was necessary to show I do not know what you are talking about, and that possibility may come from you misunderstanding a word.

Telling someone "It would have been nice if you had actually read through the debate." when they have done so is rude.
Putting false clams of fallacy is also rude.
Me misunderstanding you is not rude, you claiming I did not read something when I have done so, is rude. You assuming is rude.

I will make this simple, religion is not required to make such buildings and we have many examples to show this. Sure it can inspire and help but there is other factors at work that you are neglecting.

Why is this a point in the first place and what does that have to do with what political spectrum someone is in? If you want to know what I feel is the true fallacy here, is is you with bringing up this point in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Carer
um the first one that was being impolite is you, so I felt it was necessary to show I do not know what you are talking about, and that possibility may come from you misunderstanding a word.

Telling someone "It would have been nice if you had actually read through the debate." when they have done so is rude.
Putting false clams of fallacy is also rude.
The alternative being, what, exactly? Passively genuflecting or arbitrarily conceding points because the debate opponent is trying to shift the terms of what's being discussed because I don't want to be perceived as rude for pointing it out? That doesn't sound very fair. Granted, I may just be more used to academic-styled discussions on the topic where there's normally a low tolerance for that sort of thing in general.

So let's just address this from the top: I said "It would have been nice if you had actually read through the debate" because the debate over architecture centered around contemporary architecture not being just as beautiful as stunning as older works that I contended were inspired by religion (Christianity, specifically (they were Christian churches after all)). Then you start bringing up the Washington Monument? Niagara Falls? Grand Central Station? The Statue of Liberty? [etc.]. There's nothing contemporary about these--they're over a century old and one of them is a natural wonder! Now, maybe you don't, but I think it's very rude to offer up a value judgement of a debate if you haven't been following it throughout. I can't imagine you would have brought up those examples if you were aware of what, precisely, was being debated. I'm sure you can also imagine how watching someone with seemingly partial information jump to someone's side in a debate is unpleasant, too.

As far as claiming they were arguing proof by assertion about religion not being a motivating or inspirational force for architecture, I 100% stand by that. That should be their cue to show their work on how they reached their conclusion, which they never did. All they did was repeat that religion didn't/doesn't inspire artists or architects over and over. On the other hand, I laid out that religion (Christianity) inspired artists and architects in their works throughout history because the artists and architects strove to make things worthy of the divine particularly in religious settings, but a degree that extraordinarily high standard ended up carrying over into art and architecture more broadly--setting a more broad quality standard for art and to a somewhat lesser extent, architecture. That whole point was effectively and repeatedly dismissed out of hand, absent any analysis by them.

Hopefully this clears everything up. Being straightforward and transparent isn't being rude, it's intended to maximize the quality of debate and meaningful discussion provided everyone is speaking in good faith.
 
Last edited:

MrGnome

Est. Contributor
Messages
106
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover
I'm an Independent center that tries to keep in balance. I voted for Ron Paul both times when he ran. I voted for Trump as wild card and to troll Hillary! Later dropped complete support to Trump when he attacked Syria and hired more warmongers! I'm for strictly following the constitution, pulling troops out of all the countries we don't belong in, heavily defending our borders, getting rid of the federal reserve, cutting out the european banks, and returning to the gold backed standard. I believe in legalization of all drugs because I believe the government is violating a person's constitutional rights, "to pursue happiness"! Of course as long as they don't hurt anyone while being on the drug that is. I believe in gay marriage, being able to do anything you want as long doesn't violate anothers rights. Getting rid of CPACS so we don't get plastic wrapped paid off politicians as presidents. I want to get rid of oil and transition to hemp, magnetic generators, hydrogen generators, wind, and some solar. I do not support the fake CO2 tax scam because does nothing to solve the real pollution problem. I believe we need to repeal Obama's monsanto protection act! Especially cause glyphosate is now classified as a "cancer causing carcinogen", and people our suing for damages from cancer! And finally I believe in the 2nd amendment especially to defend against a corrupt government.
 

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
400
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
Technically speaking, the death toll of the Inquisition didn't break 3,000 according to most sources. Pol Pot racked up a body count one thousand times greater in less time.

Furthermore, while you're correct about the Crusades being a response to the rise of Islam, it's difficult to come up with wars where the international Church was the direct cause. Logically speaking, wars are more likely to break out over resources or ideological differences.
I can think of quite a few, again coming up to the Spanish Conquistadors in South America. And, although a Christian Cultist, Hitler killed approximately 12-14 million people over 10 years of his reign of terror, from Jews, Gypsies, the Disabled, Homeless, and Political prisoners. In fact there have been a lot of wars where the international Church has been indirectly involved.

Religion however has always been detrimental to Humanity.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
Then you start bringing up the Washington Monument? Niagara Falls? Grand Central Station? The Statue of Liberty? [etc.]. There's nothing contemporary about these--they're over a century old and one of them is a natural wonder! Now, maybe you don't, but I think it's very rude to offer up a value judgement of a debate if you haven't been following it throughout. I can't imagine you would have brought up those examples if you were aware of what, precisely, was being debated. I'm sure you can also imagine how watching someone with seemingly partial information jump to someone's side in a debate is unpleasant, too.
um the first one that was being impolite is you, so I felt it was necessary to show I do not know what you are talking about, and that possibility may come from you misunderstanding a word.
I have nothing more to say to you. Also you missed the point completely why I bought up that water fall, you wanted to use tour numbers for an argument.... as SgtOddball said, that is a fallacy, now who is the one unable to keep up?
Right, so you want me to name a modern building that has more visitors per year than the most visited building in the world? Apart from this being pathetic and stupid, to the point of being absurd, it is really a dumb way to try and prove a point. Going by Architectural designs is not about Tourism to begin with, the Sydney Opera house for instance is more striking than the Notre Dame.
-----
Your point is moot and no what I said is not at all a fallacy, please try again.
I laid out that religion (Christianity) inspired artists and architects in their works throughout history because the artists and architects strove to make things worthy of the divine particularly in religious settings, but a degree that extraordinarily high standard ended up carrying over into art and architecture
No:
I will make this simple, religion is not required to make such buildings and we have many examples to show this. Sure it can inspire and help but there is other factors at work that you are neglecting.

Why is this a point in the first place and what does that have to do with what political spectrum someone is in? If you want to know what I feel is the true fallacy here, is is you with bringing up this point in the first place.
I had a lot of meaning of that bold statement, and you flat out ignored it. You are missing the idea that you seem religion is a strong factor, I disagree with this idea, and people that disagree with your point of view are not automatically going into fallacy. Are we done with this now? This subject shouldn't be in this thread in the first place, something else i do not see remarked on. You have 2 people telling you, that you got a moot point, while others are not talking about this at all, is that a big enough clue yet?
I can think of quite a few, again coming up to the Spanish Conquistadors in South America. And, although a Christian Cultist, Hitler killed approximately 12-14 million people over 10 years of his reign of terror, from Jews, Gypsies, the Disabled, Homeless, and Political prisoners. In fact there have been a lot of wars where the international Church has been indirectly involved.

Religion however has always been detrimental to Humanity.
https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion
Now I am not going to sit here and say you need religion for a moral foundation, clearly you don't by historic philosophers and even some ancient ones but clearly it has an impact to the common person of morality and mental health. Now it is interesting to think about where we would be without any religion but it is quite possible we would be worse off without it then with it. Even the ancient civilizations had religion in some form or another, like the Mayans has a combination of "science" and religion. Maybe we would be in a better place if we always had a healthy mix of the 2, but clearly this is not possible, and reflected even in our modern political system. The polarization with conservatives like trump, likes to imply there is some "war" where we need to protect religious values. All they do is focus on that (even breaking the constitution to do so) not the needed balance.
 
Last edited:

SgtOddball

Est. Contributor
Messages
400
Age
25
Role
Diaper Lover, Diaperfur, Little
https://www.edge.org/conversation/jonathan_haidt-moral-psychology-and-the-misunderstanding-of-religion
Now I am not going to sit here and say you need religion for a moral foundation, clearly you don't by historic philosophers and even some ancient ones but clearly it has an impact to the common person of morality and mental health. Now it is interesting to think about where we would be without any religion but it is quite possible we would be worse off without it then with it. Even the ancient civilizations had religion in some form or another, like the Mayans has a combination of "science" and religion. Maybe we would be in a better place if we always had a healthy mix of the 2, but clearly this is not possible, and reflected even in our modern political system. The polarization with conservatives like trump, likes to imply there is some "war" where we need to protect religious values. All they do is focus on that (even breaking the constitution to do so) not the needed balance.
The problem with sighting morality with religion, is that the books themselves aren't very moral, and morality is purely subjective and based on the principles of that society, would we be worse off with than without religion? It very well would possibly have been, yes many ancient civilisations had religion, like Zeus, Jupiter and Odin.

But coming back to religion and morality, according the Bible I'd be free to own a slave, I'd also be allowed to beat up that slave as long as he or she doesn't die within 3 days after. That is not the only example either, many religions, like Christianity with Lazarus (assuming I got the right part) aren't very welcoming to those who are homosexuals, yet in today's society we very much are open to them in acceptance, so you can't exactly bring in the argument of morality when the religious books around the world have examples in the books that aren't very moral by today's standards.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
The problem with sighting morality with religion, is that the books themselves aren't very moral, and morality is purely subjective and based on the principles of that society, would we be worse off with than without religion? It very well would possibly have been, yes many ancient civilisations had religion, like Zeus, Jupiter and Odin.

But coming back to religion and morality, according the Bible I'd be free to own a slave, I'd also be allowed to beat up that slave as long as he or she doesn't die within 3 days after. That is not the only example either, many religions, like Christianity with Lazarus (assuming I got the right part) aren't very welcoming to those who are homosexuals, yet in today's society we very much are open to them in acceptance, so you can't exactly bring in the argument of morality when the religious books around the world have examples in the books that aren't very moral by today's standards.
yeah ik there is problems with it, the bible is sexist in general, why I do not understand Christian literalists and why they fall for the alt right propaganda around that (like trump wanting to break constitution by having businesses say "Merry Christmas" and putting prayer in PUBLIC schools.)

My main focus I wanted to hear your view about though, is the link of a great political divide and religion. Here in the US, a lot of Republican politicians make movements based on Christianity more then moral law (I CAN'T STAND TED CRUZ cuz of this and I was STRONGLY hoping he would lose the midterm.) and voters are unable to see the problems with this and flock to them for "SJW protection"
 
Last edited:

Daddy Niles

Est. Contributor
Messages
53
Role
Carer
I have nothing more to say to you. Also you missed the point completely why I bought up that water fall, you wanted to use tour numbers for an argument.... as SgtOddball said, that is a fallacy, now who is the one unable to keep up?
Again, tourism figures for contemporary architecture vs older architecture. Niagara Falls is a worthless example to try and use because it has nothing at all to do with architecture. If you're just going to change the terms of what's being debated (I.E. architecture), might as well go even more ludicrously off-topic and bring up Six Flags, Disney Parks, etc.

I had a lot of meaning of that bold statement, and you flat out ignored it. You are missing the idea that you seem religion is a strong factor [for artists and architects creating magnificent works], I disagree with this idea
Okay! Super! Great! 10/10! Now that we've established yet again that you disagree, I'm sure we can get some kind of reasoning as to why you think what you do? I mean, surely you wouldn't just leave it at "nuh-uh!"

You have 2 people telling you, that you got a moot point, while others are not talking about this at all, is that a big enough clue yet?
A clue for what, exactly? Surely you're not trying to make a textbook bandwagon fallacy as a point--like you literally couldn't get more textbook than that.
 
Last edited:

CutePrincess

Est. Contributor
Messages
782
Role
Adult Baby, Diaper Lover, Little
This has nothing to do with what I've said or what I've been discussing.
That is the point. It was not replying to you, did you read the quote above it?We are done with this sub topic, has nothing to do with the thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top