Michelino

I am studying about Russia and currently looking at the naming system. As I understand it everyone has a middle name by law which is your fathers name with ovich at the end. So if you father was james your middle name would translate to son of james.

But what happens if the child is adopted? Can there name be changed to the name of there new father or does it have to be the name of the biological father?

thanks

Would a gay cure really be the worst thing? On reflection I am not sure it would be. I must make clear at this point that this idea is not rooted in homophobia but rather in gay liberation. How can such an idea, the cornerstone of homophobia throughout the world become the key to freedom and liberty? The answer is that in the correct context it would be the death of religious bigotry.

The gay question currently goes back and forth, one side claiming that they were born that way and it is not a choice - which in a psychological context is no real defence - who else can use this argument for taboo sexual behaviour and get away with it? The other side of the debate claims that it is not natural to be gay. This is more interesting, as in nature - to the best of my knowledge - there are no gay animals, though there are bi-sexual animals and monogamy amongst males. In reality what happens in nature is not that important, it is the naturalistic fallacy to say that something is good or right because it happens in the natural world, it is also dumb! Rape, murder, theft and the sexual abuse of children happen in the natural world. The human experience has been to defeat nature - with food production, medicine, domestic animals, better communication tools and so forth.

This leads us into our second point, we are no longer natural - though I must point out this is not the same has having no nature. If any straight person with their TV, car, sun glasses, pc and asthma spray thinks they are living within the "natural order", they are either blind or thick. With this groundwork now done we can look at the deeper questions about gays such as; should they have the right to get married? Should they have the right to adopt? The answer to this is yes to both. Research has shown that gay couples can make wonderful parents for children; there is nothing about them that would lead us to conclude they are dangerous during a child’s upbringing. And just because we cannot explain why they are gay, assuming no other animals are strictly homosexual, does not mean we should view these people as lesser than ourselves or dangerous - not everything in humans needs to be found in animals. If religious people wish to take the argument that this must be the rule before we can accept others then they must find me a dog, cat, chicken or goldfish with a craving for Jesus before I take them seriously.

What does all of this have to do with a gay cure? Well quite simply, we can research homosexuality without removing their rights. Currently the highest rate of suicide amongst teenagers is homosexuals, the PC mob love to jump on this and assume that all of these cases are due to homophobia. I am certain a great many will be - but all? That model is far too simple to be given a total pass. I propose that within the "gay community", there is a section of homosexuals who want to be straight and then they are told being gay is not a choice. In a free society, shouldn't it be?

This impacts in no way on the rights of other gay people, no one owns there right to be happy, but by the same token no one owns the rights of other gay people because they are gay. If happiness can be found from not being gay, why should this not be offered? We live in a century of medicine and miracle, where a woman can cancel pregnancy and a man can become a woman. Who tells them to obey the "natural order?" Why should homosexuals who are not happy with their sexuality be told just to chin up and deal with it? But my idea does not stop there; it may also be possible to cure people of their heterosexuality. I am certain there are many straight men who want to be bi or gay. Why should they not have access to a means of achieving this in the long run? If such things are possible for all involved it would be an act of liberty. It would allow people the freedom to choose who they want to be, without affecting the freedoms of other people who remain straight, gay or bi.

It would also destroy religion. If gays are willing to help other gays make the switch, then the current weapon of the homophobe is suddenly the tool of sexual freedom and an aid of the gay movement. Why can't it be two male lovers with a child who conduct research into a cure which allows other people to live the life they want as well? Who said it had to be straight people with a religious belief? Why can't it be the gay movement who say whatever your relationship with homosexuality be it living it, becoming it or leaving it, we understand?

The perfect irony is that if the gay movement were able to produce a more effective treatment for sexuality than religious groups, religious groups would lose their customers and the homophobes would be in effect funding gay liberation as the profits could be donated to the civil rights causes. This does not mean all people who don't want to be gay are automatically homophobic; it just shows

1. Communism means that their is NO government (google pure communism)

2. Communism is the removal of hierarchy. Hierarchy from the church, economy and government.

3. Communism is the idea that people democratically vote on how they want society too be. Rosa Luxemburg, a Marxist, once stated "freedom for the members of the government is not freedom. Freedom is for the one that thinks differently"

4. Communism is the idea that everyone has talents that they ignore because the wealthy turn them into workers and treat them poorly. Therefore under Communism in theory,people go to work because they enjoy the project and are fully active in all processes of creation, not because they require money to survive and have taxes to pay.

5. Communism is the belief that you are allowed PRIVATE PROPERTY!! Marx states in the communist manifesto that Communists believe that a mans house or property is his. That no government or banking model should have the power to take away these things. The only things owned by everyone are the workplaces which are democratically ran for the good of the community. (youtube, hotel bauen)

6. Communism is finally the belief that the rich will crash the system, punish the people and the masses will rise up worldwide.

What most people think is communism is actually "state capitalism" or marxist - leninist, maoism or stalinism but not pure communism, also called stateless communism.

In short, Communism is a stage of social development where material and productive forces are advanced to a degree where actual freedom (freedom from necessity, and thus from wage labor and alienation from work) for every person is possible.

The state apparatus becomes redundant because social classes cease to exist.

It was a Communist called Joseph Déjacque who first used the word, Libertarian and it was to describe what a Communist society would look like. Libertarianism is actually an anti-capitalist and anti-conservative word.

So the final point, Communism was not invented by Karl Marx, his marxist theory of state ownership of the means of production which will become a stateless communist society is rejected by many communists.

Communism ideology was infact invented by Thomas More and then later developed by François-Noël Babeuf .

Why were you not told this before? Too many rich people in Wall street & Bohemian grove felt threatened at the idea of losing their influence and money to the working masses.

The question is this, do you think the model above is likely with the amount of people turning on both the government and the elites?

I am wanting to go to Catalunya but don't like seafood. What dishes can you suggest for me?

I know the answer to this question is because they are currently part of the Spanish kingdom but I was wondering why many Barca players who may be Catalan nationalists would play for Spain if they are against the idea of being Spanish.

Secondly, do many Catalan nationalists feel let down by this (Catalan nationalists going along with being Spanish) or do they enjoy the sucess the Catalan players bring to the Spanish team? (as in saying, you wouldn't win without us to the rest of Spain)

I am wanting to go to Italy, and hopefully make some friends. So I am looking for like minded people.

What part of Italy am I most likely to find leftists?

I define leftist as: pro socialism (workers rights, high taxes on rich, free education/health care), or social liberalism. pro gay rights, anti racist, anti xenophobic and pro secular.

Someone suggested Bologna to me at work, is that any good? I've been told they have alot of Communism, which actualy interests me since communism doesn't enter the debate in Scotland.

What other regions are liberal minded leftist?

I have read stories about gypsy camps being burned down, ethnic minorities left to die on the beach after injuries, a footballer playing for the italian national football team and being booed because is he black, with chants of "italians can't be black", sexism towards women, corruption, lega nord race theories about southern italians, southern italians saying the northern italians care more about the clothes someone wears than their values, homophobia from the catholic church, protests over gay pride, and the mayor of rome being greated with chants of "il duce" in reference to mussolini when he took office. (as well as that sort of thing happening with lazio fans)

It sounds really negative and worrying. Is there anything being done to stop such issues?

Also what part of Italy is the least devoutly religious, the most tolerant (towards other races and homosexuals), most secular and most welcoming. Cause I would like to visit Italy, I just don't want to get caught up in racist, xenophobia, homophobic, nationalistic rally. (if anything starts up)

Where in Italy should I visit to avoid all of that?

How common are these problems?

Is it true that Italy outlawed pineapples because they considered them foreign. I know its a random question but is it true? Is nationalism extreme in Italy?

I have heard that Catalans do not like people from outside Catalonia coming over to live. That they have a very nationalist mentality and do not have much time for foreigners who visit or live there.

Clearly not every last Catalan can be that way, so my question is , is that common or only in the minority?

I have heard that Catalans do not like people from outside Catalonia coming over to live. That they have a very nationalist mentality and do not have much time for foreigners who visit or live there.

Clearly not every last Catalan can be that way, so my question is , is that common or only in the minority?

How does it differ from devolution?

I'm ignorant when it comes to Irish history. So I'm not writting this to start any trouble. I am just wondering why the IRA (1919-1921) are considered heroes by the Irish while the PIRA and Real IRA are considered thugs by many Irish people.

What makes them different? Aren't they both trying to unite Ireland?

Also if Ireland was unitfied would people of British descent be allowed to stay? Or would it become a BNP style arguement about who was indigenous to Ireland?

But most importantly please tell me the differences between the old IRA and the PIRA and Real IRA. Just why people feel differently about them.

I was just wondering who the Irish National Anthem was in tribute too.

I have been told it is about the fianna in Irish mythology and others have told me it is about the IRA of 1919-1922.

Some have said it was rebels that fought for Ireland? What groups were these rebels in and what years did these fights happen?

Can anyone shed some light on this for me?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvRii...

I found out today it is not about the IRA 1919-1921 but the Fianna.

Who were they and what did they stand for?

All I know is their were a group of warriors that feature in Irish mythology and the Irish national anthem is about them.

I always though the national anthem was about the IRA of 1919-1921 but it turns out isn't anything to do with the IRA so that begs me to ask who were the Fianna and what era did they exist?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvRii...

please use the link and don't leave any remarks of hatred.

Would Ireland (now united) have began a reign of terror like the French revolution? (in the respect of all loyalists being killed)

Would they have started up a single party government that was socialist?

Would they live in a cathoilic legal system?

Did they want to kill or deport anyone who wasn't loyal to the united ireland cause?

Would the Irish people have felt safe if IRA became the government and police force?

Would people have a representation if they weren't religious or had another religion other than christianity?

Just wondering if they had any British or Scottish history? Wondering why they use that design.

Recently I have been watching a number of videos online about sceptical anti religious views. I have watched speeches and debates with Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. I have seen clips of religious jokes and debate from the show “Real time with Bill Maher” and this lead me onto the movie Religulous. Doing a little more research after questioning if Atheism or “Rationalism” can only lead to Nihilism I discovered Humanism.

Humanism appears to be straight forward. It claims that we don’t need Gods to be good people and that we should live life to the fullest. Now this appears from the outside to be a very nice stance on life. However upon looking closer I am beginning to see something else coming the boil.

While most Humanists are properly care free people, like religion has done, Humanism is developing a militant front. Both Dawkins and Hitchens are Humanists and widely respected as freethinkers. The only issue is once they have given their conclusion do the people listening to them dare to think that maybe they were wrong or can these debates in the most extreme circumstances plant seeds in other peoples heads. People that maybe think it is their duty to stop religion?

The conclusion of Religulous was “Religion must die”, Dawkins view is people that believe in the bible or indeed a God are “stupid” and have “Invisible friends” and Hitchens view to quote it was “I am absolutely convinced that the main source of hatred in the world is religion” that statement was met by a massive applause. His next question was “How are they going to ban religion?” Which is moving into a dictatorship. I put it to you with those quotes that free thought is only allowed if you think like everyone else within Humanism. That people will get so into it and so passionate about it that they will, like extremely religious people, become lost in one mind set and feel they need to fight and maybe even kill to try and enforce their views onto other people.

Humanism to cut it short is based on the idea of religion, only without the Gods. You have secular weddings, secular funerals, science is your scripture and these debaters are your motivation for life. There is something about that that leads me to believe that this is turning into a movement rather than a group of people that actually looking for answers.

I ask you, for all the people that ever prayed to God or Jesus or Allah or Mohammed, how many of them were answered by a hand appearing from the sky and handing them weapons?

Nuclear weapons and wars are not the result of religion, they are the result of an ideology going to far and clashing with another one. They are the result of humans thinking that they must destroy someone or something that is wrong with the planet. To all Humanisms that want a peaceful world, stop for two seconds and think, where can your ideology take you to if it goes too far?

Our problem is not what Christopher Hitchens went onto say, “we are afraid of the dark and we’re afraid to die.” Our problem is that we to ready to die when we believe we have a cause to fight for. It is hardwired into us people, it’s been part of our survival throughout evolution and history.

Finally I ask you all does the fact that a Humanist like Christopher Hitchens has said “I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt” not worry you?

Just imagine if someone stood for election, used propaganda of religious extremists and said “this is what we are against, treat it with hatred, it must be outlawed” Simply put, it’s illegal not to be an Atheist” Would you vote for them? Would you let them control your child’s education and dictate to you what is and what isn’t an acceptable thought?

As far as I can see, that is want a lot of people are joining when they decided to become a Humanists. They want and maybe desire a world where we all respect each other and science is the answer to every problem.

In honesty as a freethinker, I don’t want a world were we become worst than the thing we claimed to oppose. While religion moans about homosexuality for example, sciences can “cure” it by reprogramming genetics that are just obeying their natural program. Is it not possible that humans can know too much? Or indeed that something that started with the best of intentions can unravel itself to become nothing more than a reverence of scientific bigotry?

When Christians or Muslims say it is only the few that are like that, Humanists from what I have seen, tend to say that that is still enough proof that religions are the reason for people getting involved in unthinkable acts of evil and because of this religions should be as Christopher Hitchens put it “outlawed” or “ treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt.”

Will Humanism view itself in the same way if these violent attacks on innocent people are envisioned and delivered by actual Humanists opposing religion? and what would be your solution to a problem like that