This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 28 March 2008 (WP:UP#NOT). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:43, 28 March 2008 by Sennen goroshi (talk | contribs) (WP:UP#NOT)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Misplaced Pages editorThis is a Wikipedia user page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beleg_Strongbow. |
Determined, active Misplaced Pages user.
Beleg Strongbow (a poem)
Beleg Strongbow
A Sindarin Elf of Doriath was he.
Warrior woodsmen that came to be
In Thingol’s realm, an archer to be feared.
Haladin aided, a War of Unnumbered Tears.
A Year of Lamentation ensued.
Battle Grief was readily viewed.
Apprenticed Túrin, in arms and deed.
Two great captains, giving aid in need.
Although a bowman by right,
Yet in his last year did take
The sword Anglachel to fight.
His enemies fled in its wake.
His friend Túrin was captured and subdued.
The Orcish captors took him from Amon Rûdh.
Beleg rescued Túrin from this grisly end.
But Túrin bewitched, slays his dear, good friend.
And so passes Beleg, the Strongbow Sindarin Elf,
Betrayed by a sword’s malice and a friend to himself.
His Bow Belthronding is buried with him
As Túrin grieves for his unknowing whim.
Evolution Disclaimer Statement
The following statement should be added as a disclaimer of the Theories of Evolution (i.e. Darwinistic-based theories on natural selection) wherever scientific-ish statements are made that rely heavily upon the validity of Evolution.
- Based upon the assumptions which form the foundation of Darwinistic-based biological evolution, the following hypotheses, for which there is no physical evidence, have been derived.
Where it may be approved within the discussion section of articles, I will attempt to add this disclaimer wherever it might bring clarity to the topic.
--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Position on Embryonic/Fetal Abortion
There needs to be either a full-frontal attack on embryonic/fetal abortion, as the blatant murder of innocent human life or a large-scale, final acceptance that an embryo is not human life (i.e. it is neither human nor living) and therefore does not have the right to life.
The argument that a woman should be able to make the decision, to have an embryonic abortion, on her own "because she is an adult" is based upon two ridiculous assumptions. First, it assumes she is an adult, while the majority of abortions are performed on teenage girls, who are often not given a choice but are instead coerced and/or compelled by either their parents or their boyfriends. Second, it asserts that being an adult gives someone the right to decide when another human being's life is neither necessary nor desirable and may therefore be terminated--sounds a lot like anarchy.
My personal position, that human life begins at the moment of conception, dictates that embryonic abortion is wrong--regardless of the reason--because it is indeed murder. The only exception would be for the necessity of saving the mother's life, but this necessity has been all but eliminated within modernized countries.
Abortion isn't really the defining issue between those on the political left and those on the political right. Sanctity of Life is. The unfortunate fact that leftists tend to dismiss the sanctity of life is one of the main reasons why they are producing offspring below the replacement rate (while those on the right are reproducing above the replacement rate) and are therefore forced to increase their numbers through proselytization in the universities, by the means of data manipulation and historical revision.
I ask the question, How can it be a woman's Constitutional Right to murder a human being within his most vulnerable stage of life...?
Indeed, embryonic/fetal abortion is the most heinous form of evil, for in this act, a human being, existing within the most vulnerable stage of life, is betrayed and murdered by the very person upon whom he is completely dependent, the very person who should have loved him without measure, though to all the world he was unknown.
--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 18:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Pro-life Statements
- A person's a person, no matter how small! — Horton Hears a Who! by Dr. Seuss
- How can it be a woman's Constitutional Right to murder a human being within his most vulnerable stage of life...?
- Life begins at conception.
Position on Homosexuality (1)
Without question, homosexuals deserve to be treated just as courteously as any heterosexual. Courtesy is something that every individual owes to every other individual, particularly if he desires to be treated courteously himself. But being courteous does not necessarily mean being blindly tolerant.
There is a point being made that homosexuals have not chosen their homosexuality, but this point is largely irrelevant. The real question at hand is not “Has so-and-so chosen to have a particular desire or inclination?” but instead “Has that person decided to act upon it?”
There are many people in the prison systems who literally can not control their harmful--sometimes deadly--desires, but an inability to disassociate oneself from a desire should not be a “permission slip” for licentiousness. For example, pedophilia should not be excused based upon the reasoning that a man who suffers from desires to perform sexual acts upon children did not choose this perversion. Homosexuality, though not as violent, is no less a sexual perversion, as nature itself proves it to be physically, emotionally and (most importantly) spiritually damaging.
Though all have the right, within the God Blessed United States of America, to associate themselves with homosexuality (i.e. possessing sexual desires for members of the same gender), no one should encourage or even excuse the act of homosexuality (i.e. performing sensual acts, ranging from intimate embraces to forms of sexual penetration, with members of the same gender)--to encourage such behavior is no less cruel or reckless than to commit violence against a man, because he has admitted to homosexual tendencies.
Heterosexuals need to reach out in charity, embracing in godliness and with kindness those involved in homosexuality, offering whatever help may be given in an effort to set them free from the chains of this addictive and destructive lifestyle.
--Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)