Slashdot Mirror
The People Vs. Common Sense
Mogg writes "GamerGod.com has a new article up entitled "The People Vs. Common Sense, A Citizen's View at Michigan's SB-0146 Law," commenting on the new Michigan state video game law. "Have we made absolutely certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths??" Very nicely written piece.
I'm sorry, but you do not see article here.
> READ THE ARTICLE
I'm sorry, but you are not carrying that item.
> BLOODY SLASHDOT
Obviously you were raised by a naughty wizard.
I am from a small, grease-loving country in the north called Ca-na-da.
Aghhh exactly my point, I thought this was going to be a great article, and instead I got this dried up turd that was so boring to read. Even Melba Toast is not that dry!
Totally agree, how has *this* made it onto my screen...
Or perhaps he simply spends some time reading books that were written back when people actually used the English Language to its full potential.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
i want this to reach everyones common sense: the new home of the GOATSE is http://www.goatse.dr.ag/
Because it would have been suicide?
Because when a society began to do well they needed to be protected militarily so they weren't conquered?
A good system is one that runs without interference. As a general rule, God follows his own rules. "Miracles" (Laws governing physical universe being directly broken) in the Bible are relatively few and far between, especially compared to the sacred texts of other religions.
God taught his people to be self sufficient and conquered those who would have very willingly conquered them. Preemptive first strike is a sound defensive strategy if preservation is your goal.
Never confuse volume with power.
Recently moved to Rochester, NY and looking for things to do. Please help.
Take up trail running, lots of good opportunities in the area.
Posted anon, becasue I am moderating in this thread.
-Finger Lakes area runner...
I think it comes down to this:
:)
What is wrong? What is right? Is anything right?
In American culture, the only two things that are understood to be right for all people at all times are these:
1. All truth is relative. Therefore: Don't force your beliefs on others - sometimes interpreted as "don't express your beliefs around me, you kook!"
2. The individual's right to pursuit of happiness is the only sacred thing.
On what do you base your opinion that it's "wrong to kill people because of their beliefs?"
Some things are absolutely true. Physiologically speaking, electrocution (within certain parameters) will defintely kill you. Mathematically speaking, 2+2=4 all day long. For some reason it seems hard for many people to accept that certain things are absolutely true with respect to morality.
If you design a mechanical device, is it not your place as the designer to define what ways use of the device is destructive to the device, and what ways are non-destructive? If there is a God who created people, is it not His place to define acceptable and unacceptable norms? If that is true, then is it not also acceptable for Him to determine what to do about people who are in the area of unacceptable norms?
I'm interested to hear your response.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Of course, I tend to disagree with a number of your points above, but we are in violent agreement about the understanding of and implementation of what Christ taught.
A couple of points worth discussion - sadly I only have time for one right now:
most of that was thrown out by Christ as being wrong
A study of this topic is in order to appreciate exactly what Christ taught - more than can reasonbly be covered here, but following your example, I'll quote Christ
Jesus did not say that the Old Testament was wrong. Largely he said that the religious types of his day (and prior) had missed the point - focused more on appearing righteous than actually being righteous. Much more to be said, but I've got to run right now...
With respect to my having to teach others morality, the question is "what evidence do you have that the flying spaghetti monster - or whatever diety you have in mind - produced the document you claim provides his authority?"
I have several tests that can be applied to documentation to evealuate whether it is reasonable to pay any attention to what they say. These include: Internal consistency, external consistency, and preservation of the text over time.
How does your theoretical document fare when these ideas are considered?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?