Slashdot Mirror


Lineage II Addiction Lawsuit Makes It Past the EULA

We recently discussed a man who sued NCsoft for making Lineage II "too addictive" after he spent 20,000 hours over five years playing it. Now, several readers have pointed out that the lawsuit has progressed past its first major hurdle: the EULA. Quoting: "NC Interactive has responded the way most software companies and online services have for more than a decade: it argued that the claims are barred by its end-user license agreement, which in this case capped the company's liability to the amount Smallwood paid in fees over six months prior to his filing his complaint (or thereabouts). One portion of the EULA specifically stated that lawsuits could only be brought in Texas state court in Travis County, where NC Interactive is located. ... But the judge in this case, US District Judge Alan C. Kay, noted that both Texas and Hawaii law bar contract provisions that waive in advance the ability to make gross-negligence claims. He also declined to dismiss Smallwood's claims for negligence, defamation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress."

267 comments

  1. I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by johnhp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious.

    1. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by nacturation · · Score: 1

      because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious.

      Nah, let's start a class action suit against Slashdot. :)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    2. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, that would be dismissed immediately, unprovable claim.

    3. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by bakamorgan · · Score: 0, Redundant

      then can I can sue wendy for those damn addicting frosties?...damn them then after that I will make a movie become famous so when I get busted for drugs and hookers I can just say oh the fame made me do it then go to rehab while still making a shit ton of money. Since thats how all the clebraties are doing it now a days. After I start to loose fame then I will work my way to suing McDonalds for their damn addicting fries. then repeate the cycle. Sounds good, when do we start?

    4. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by dangitman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, sue Pringles - they even claim that once you pop you can't stop... but wait, does that legally constitute a warning and therefore relieve them of responsibility?

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    5. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Aeternitas827 · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd say it more likely signals intent; they want the chips to be addictingly good. See also, Frito-Lay's slightly less incriminating 'Betcha Can't Eat Just One' tagline.

      --
      I don't post AC. I like my -1, Flamebaits. Trump/Sheen 2012 on the Batshit Insane ticket!
    6. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's just the MSG my friend. The food is not delicious.

    7. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by couchslug · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      "... because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious."

      Small potatoes. I'll sue all owners of a vagina!

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    8. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Small potatoes. I'll sue all owners of a vagina!

      Wow, you must have been busy.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    9. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Then why the fuck are Pringles tubes resealable ?

    10. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by notknown86 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have a killer suit against Burger King for damages to my toilet.

    11. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by notknown86 · · Score: 1

      My toilet has a killer suit against Burger King for damages and gross (really gross) negligence

    12. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by ooshna · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Yeah like the owners of vagina make money being in the kitchen all day.

    13. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      ... because if it does, I'll have a killer suit against Burger King for making their food too delicious.

      Unfortunately the judge would throw the case out as soon as he samples the product.

    14. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by pregister · · Score: 1

      To keep them extra fresh and crisp-a-licious between bites.

    15. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      You'll have to have a heart attack first. No monetary loss, no foul. Plus, if you smoke or do anything else bad for your heart (like sitting in front of a computer all day), you'll probably lose then too.

      Of course, IANAL...

    16. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      They're resealable for the same reasons 7-11's have locks on their doors right next to the sign that says "Open 24 hours a day"

    17. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      How about Chester Cheetah telling me that Cheetos are "Dangerously Cheesy"?

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    18. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Amouth · · Score: 1

      i just realized that gambling is illegal here.. wonder if i can get charges filed against them

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    19. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      See also, Frito-Lay's slightly less incriminating 'Betcha Can't Eat Just One' tagline.

      That one's harmless; it sounds like they taste so bad you can't even choke one of them down.

    20. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by ginbot462 · · Score: 2, Funny

      For your tennis ball storage needs.

      --
      Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
    21. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by dougisfunny · · Score: 1

      To keep the zombies out?

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    22. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in their defense, right after being robbed, they are supposed to lock the doors until the police show up. At least that's the way it was at Plaid Pantry when I worked there.

    23. Re:I hope his lawsuit succeeds... by PhunkySchtuff · · Score: 1

      Delicious? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  2. Big "Uh Oh!" by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah... this attempt is very interesting. A Texas company writing a license agreement in a state requiring any legal claims against them be brought in Texas and limiting liabilities in ways that are expressly prohibited under Texas law? Hrm! Either that EULA came from a boiler-plate that originated from out of state (not a good excuse) or they simply thought they could get away with it and got caught. This is rather like the "new patent troll" story where people are trying to benefit themselves through legal means when they actually have no right to claim such.

    I wonder if the pendulum is actually starting to swing the other way now?

    1. Re:Big "Uh Oh!" by daveime · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry but why is this an issue ?

      A company in Lichtenstein or Switzerland can write a contract that is only legally binding in those countries, yet Texas is bigger than both of them.

      The 50 odd states of the US all have different tax laws and local government, so why is one not allowed to set terms in contracts that relate directly to the area you are doing business in. Does it have to include provisions for all 50 odd states ?

    2. Re:Big "Uh Oh!" by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you miss the part where some of their Texas-requiring EULA is actually prohibited by Texas law?

    3. Re:Big "Uh Oh!" by totally+bogus+dude · · Score: 4, Informative

      Let me quote the post you responded to, with a bit of emphasis

      A Texas company writing a license agreement [...] requiring any legal claims against them be brought in Texas and limiting liabilities in ways that are expressly prohibited under Texas law

      You're welcome. Have a nice day!

    4. Re:Big "Uh Oh!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A company in Lichtenstein or Switzerland can write a contract that is only legally binding in those countries, yet Texas is bigger than both of them.

      And that's why most licenses and contracts include a salvatorius clause that basically states that in case any of the other clauses is invalid/prohibited, all others are not affected. Contracts with end-users usually can't have provisions that determine the court and/or law that has to be applied, it's always the one where the end-user buys the product/lives/uses the service (at least in the EU).

    5. Re:Big "Uh Oh!" by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Do any other states have laws that overrule the jurisdiction clause? If so then it would make sense for the limitation to be there.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Big "Uh Oh!" by hedwards · · Score: 2, Informative

      In general the answer would be no. You're supposed to file suit against a party in their home jurisdiction. In this case, I don't think that's what happened, the Judge in the case noted that in neither of the two relevant states does the local law allow the limitations on gross negligence claims to be limited in advance and as such can't be considered valid. Which is common sense, it can get dicey when the laws disagree, but it's silly in cases where both jurisdictions are actually in agreement to go with something else completely.

    7. Re:Big "Uh Oh!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are very odd. I can't even respond to such fantastic victimization reasoning because it just doesnt make any sense.

  3. look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    "No it is not my fault, they made me do it by designing the game a certain way" and in the same breath the fucking moron will claim that he has free will because he lives in US-America.

    But fear not, the solution will involve lots of praying and other superstitious crap.

    1. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ChocNut · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Stop bashing religion. Praying is a form of grace. More good comes from modern religion than you can imagine.

    2. Re:look another US-American idiot! by SudoGhost · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Praying? Can I sue the Church if that prayer is ineffective? False advertising and whatnot?

      The guy suing is almost as stupid as the idiot who sued McDonalds because her coffee was hot.

    3. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Facebeast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More good comes from modern religion than you can imagine.

      War. Racism. Homophobia. Sexism. Indoctrination of children. Rejection of science/reason. Rejection of contraception leading to the spread of STDs.

      So what's the good bit? It better be fucking massive.

    4. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more good rape?

    5. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, taking good care of your family, critical thought, responsibility.

      I'm sure you can find something in that list that should appeal to you.

    6. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He said religion not Catholicism.

    7. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Issarlk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why do you describe buddhism when we are talking about religion?

    8. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Check The Ten Commandments. Neither of the stuff you mentioned is approved there. Everything you mentioned is a byproduct of abuse of religion. If there were no religion, people would find another excuse to be racists or homophobes. After all, communists also did most of the things you mentioned and they rejected religion.

      And don't give me that crap "communism is good in theory, it's the power-hungry people who abused it". The same can be said for religion. As I said, just check The Ten Commandments. Especially those saying that you should not kill, rape or steal.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    9. Re:look another US-American idiot! by PieterBr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The woman suing Mc Donalds wasn't stupid. A: she got quite a lot of cash out of it, and B: the reason why she won the case was that was shown that Ms Donalds put profit before safety. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

    10. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about the theocrats that had enserfdomed the whole tibethan population.
      The ones who would enact punishments such as gouging the eyes out of peasants
      when they revolted. Granted, things are hell in Tibet since China invaded but it was hell
      before under the theocracy.

    11. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vadim_t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can have more of that without religion than with it.

      peace: without a religion, many wars cease to exist, since there's no "promised land" to fight over, no divine commands to wage war that would otherwise not be necessary. There's no holy war, and no infidels to conquer or convert, no crusades to wage. Certainly, war doesn't disappear completely if you remove religion, but the amount of reasons to wage it shrinks considerably.

      acceptance: of what you mean more specifically? But generally I'm a very "whatever floats your boat" kind of person. I think that all victimless crimes should be decriminalized. Religion isn't very accepting of many kinds of those, though.

      equality: The bible isn't big on this, especially regarding women, who for instance may not speak in church (Corinthians 14:34). Religion is very much coming in conflict with equality. For instance, the opposition to gay marriage and ordaining women.

      taking good care of your family: I don't think there's been a single society on this planet that thought differently. Of course the standards for what "taking good care of your family" means exactly vary widely, but everybody seems to agree on that it's a must.

      critical thought: right. Critical thought and blind obedience are mutually exclusive. Did Abraham exericse a lot of critical thought in pondering whether to sacrifice his son? Now of course he was stopped at the last moment, but the whole event is a show of the complete lack of any kind of thought. When told to sacrifice he does, and when told to stop he does.

      responsibility: more details on this is needed, but about the same deal as the family one if I understood you correctly.

    12. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Modded: 'troll/flamebait'...

      --
      No sig today...
    13. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      Slight disagreement: the modern translation is "you shall not murder", not "you shall not kill". The bible certainly contains a lot of killing in it, divinely mandated too. The "you shall not kill" taken seriously would turn christians into buddhist monks that make sure not to harm even an ant, and that clearly isn't happening.

    14. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Read the list again ... it's just the antonyms of the parent post.

      PS: You're right about the Ten commandments though.

      --
      No sig today...
    15. Re:look another US-American idiot! by meerling · · Score: 1

      There are millions of people in this country, so there are bound to be a few nutjobs, but I'll admit we seem to be running above average lately...

    16. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Remind me again which verse tells me not to murder...I just read the list and it's not there.

      --
      No sig today...
    17. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Critical thought is frowned upon in religion it is not encouraged. This is practically the definition of faith.

      Parroting "evolution is JUST a theory" is not critical thought.

      Atheist are perfectly capable of embracing peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, familial care, critical thought and responsibility. They do this because of a personal ethic, not because they are afraid of the wrath of an invisible monster.

      Speaking broadly and drawing from all of the Abrahamic religions; war, racism, homophobia, sexism, indoctrination, anti-reason, and anti-contraception are all practically sacraments.

    18. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vadim_t · · Score: 1
    19. Re:look another US-American idiot! by TFAFalcon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      responsibility: more details on this is needed, but about the same deal as the family one if I understood you correctly.

      You can do anything you want, as long as you confess it to a priest later and say you're sorry. If you do that all the consequences go away.

    20. Re:look another US-American idiot! by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      As I said, just check The Ten Commandments. Especially those saying that you should not kill, rape or steal.

      As long as the one you're killing, raping or stealing from isn't one of the hundreds of exceptions also listed in the bible.

    21. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      That's totally unfair. You missed out overpopulation.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    22. Re:look another US-American idiot! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Religions are exclusive, so either all are lies and one is truth, or they are all lies.

      There is no reason to respect religion. I don't believe in your imaginary "grace". Prove it exists or fuck off.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    23. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Huh? Where does it say that's one of the Ten Commandments?

      The only place in the Bible where it says "Ten Commandments" is Exodus 34:28

      --
      No sig today...
    24. Re:look another US-American idiot! by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "critical thought, "

      Except when applied to the superstition itself. The essence of religion is prohibition and submission.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    25. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 0

      I can have more of that without religion than with it.

      peace: without a religion, many wars cease to exist, since there's no "promised land" to fight over, no divine commands to wage war that would otherwise not be necessary. There's no holy war, and no infidels to conquer or convert, no crusades to wage. Certainly, war doesn't disappear completely if you remove religion, but the amount of reasons to wage it shrinks considerably.

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that religion provides reasons for war. At best, it provides excuses. Politics provides reasons. Abolishing religion and keeping politics is not going to reduce the number of wars in any way.

      acceptance: of what you mean more specifically?

      Not judging people, not hating them for being different, accepting their shortcomings, etc. Of course this can vary quite a lot by religion, but Christianity's core scriptures are pretty big on loving your enemy, forgiving everything, not taking vengeance, considering all humans of equal value. Radical notions at that time, and in fact, they still are. They go rather against human nature, but I consider them very positive.

      equality: The bible isn't big on this, especially regarding women, who for instance may not speak in church (Corinthians 14:34).

      In other letters, Paul proposes women for church functions, so it's not as clear-cut as that. It's a popular verse in patriarchical societies, however.

      Religion is very much coming in conflict with equality. For instance, the opposition to gay marriage and ordaining women.

      Yet lots of churches do ordain women and accept gay marriages. Note though that the position of women was pretty awful in for example ancient Greece, before the arrival of Christianity.

      critical thought: right. Critical thought and blind obedience are mutually exclusive. Did Abraham exericse a lot of critical thought in pondering whether to sacrifice his son? Now of course he was stopped at the last moment, but the whole event is a show of the complete lack of any kind of thought. When told to sacrifice he does, and when told to stop he does.

      You're confusing blind obedience with trust. Trust is not mutually exclusive with critical thought. The bible contains quite a bit of philosophical works, and at some point commands to "examine all things and keep the good".

      You're picking and choosing very specific verses that suit your argument. If you want to do honest criticism, you should read the rest too. And keep an eye on the historical context. (Not something a lot of people are good at, I admit.)

    26. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 0, Troll

      Critical thought is frowned upon in religion it is not encouraged. This is practically the definition of faith.

      Depends on your religion, I guess. Mine encourages critical thought.

      Parroting "evolution is JUST a theory" is not critical thought.

      It's also not religious.

      Atheist are perfectly capable of embracing peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, familial care, critical thought and responsibility. They do this because of a personal ethic, not because they are afraid of the wrath of an invisible monster.

      Speaking broadly and drawing from all of the Abrahamic religions; war, racism, homophobia, sexism, indoctrination, anti-reason, and anti-contraception are all practically sacraments.

      You might be more convincing if you demonstrated some tolerance, acceptance and critical thought. The things you mention are all works of people. Things people have done with or without religion. They're products of conservativism and traditionalism, and have very little to do with religion.

    27. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The essence of religion is prohibition and submission.

      Depends on the religion, I guess. For me, the essence is faith.

    28. Re:look another US-American idiot! by notknown86 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Modded: 'troll/flamebait'...

      Why? Because you disagree?

      The arguments above were all valid. If you disagree, you are welcome to make your case.

      Religion does NOT get a free pass here. This is NOT the government.

    29. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Is buddhism not a religion?

    30. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      If most slashdotters think that buddhism should be exempted when religion is mentioned in negative context, why are most of slashdotters atheists instead of buddhists?

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    31. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I guess you're a Bahá'í then? It's the only religion I know which pays more than lip service to science and reason, faith in any other religion pretty much precludes critical thinking.

      --
      No sig today...
    32. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Interesting how I was modded as troll for stating the truth (even if you disagree with my post, remember that slashdot doesn't have a disagree moderation).
      And I'm not even a religious person (more like an agnostic), I just wished for you anti-theist folk to look past petty hatred towards religion. But that's something you are apparently uncapable of.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    33. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Peace

      The Crusades, the Inquistions, extremist Islam...

      "But that's just people using religion for their own ends!" you exclaim. Fair enough, though I do seem to remember that God decided to drown all of the inhabitants of the world, including all of the animals, except for a dude and his wife and one of each animal of each gender because he felt they were getting too uppity. I'm not sure what the animals, in particular, did to deserve such a fate even if the cleansing of mankind was necessary. Couldn't he have magicked them a snorkle or something?

      That doesn't exactly scream out "peace" to me. The Nazis tried something similar with substantially less success and we call it the Holocaust, part of World War 2. (And yup, I just Godwin'd all over the Bible.) And while we're at it, isn't the Christian vision of the end of the world a gigantic war between the armies of the righteous fronted by Jesus and the legions of hell led by Satan, a man tolerated and accepted so much that he was cast from heaven?

      tolerance, acceptance, equality

      Catholics believe that the only way to heaven is through their Church. Christian but not Catholic? Oopsie. Sorry, you're fucked. They've declared a monopoly.

      Pretty much any religion that forms a basis from the Old Testament (all three major world religions) believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Their Holy Book instructs them to believe that women are property--a position that is still reflected to this day in some societies and which was only in recent history rid from the laws of the United States, land of the free and home of the brave. The can also be sold into slavery. In fact while God seems to take great exception to Egypt enslaving "his people" and goes to great lengths to free them, he seems to have no problem at all with the general concept of slavery.

      Original sin? That belongs to those filthy women, who just can't seem to keep their hands off the forbidden apple tree. A "crime" for which both she and the innocent Adam are cast forever from Paradise. Is that tolerance? Catholics, to this day, do not allow women to be priests and try as we might, they are still second class citizens in the workforce -- positions that derived their authority from religion. Equality? Acceptance?

      taking good care of your family

      One supposes that depends on the definition. Islamic women must cover their faces and be escorted by a male relative. I suppose one could argue that's taking really, really good care of their family, but I doubt any enlightened view would see it as such. Selling the women into slavery is rather unequivocally not taking care of them. I'm not sure how one should feel about the incest that believing the creation stories would require either, but I suppose I can't argue too much with it from a "preservation of the species" perspective.

      But I'm feeling generous, so I'll give you this one. Taking care of one's family is, for the most part, espoused by religion.

      responsibility

      If you choose to adhere to one of the religions that believe in some final weighing of souls, perhaps. I'm not sure to what degree it is responsibility if you can escape eternal damnation by apologizing, however. Beyond that we're left to our own devices, which I hardly find worthy of calling a device of religion.

      But let's assume all of what you said was completely, unequivocally true. In that case I'm compelled to ask you this: Do you believe in Zeus, sir? The majority of these concepts are not new to the major world religions of today. The originated--often concurrently--in various different and now dead religions, from the Greeks and Romans to the Egyptians to the Norse to the indigenous peoples of any number of secluded islands. Can they really be called an invention of religion?

    34. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      I guess you're a Bahá'í then? It's the only religion I know which pays more than lip service to science and reason, faith in any other religion pretty much precludes critical thinking.

      But it is still a religion and therefore deserves scorn, right? Otherwise why bash religion and/or be atheist if not all religions are same shit in different package?

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    35. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 5, Informative

      Buddhism doesn't involve believing in any gods (though some people worship Buddha apparently), so you can be an atheist Buddhist..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    36. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Bible is man-written. Ten Commandments are given to Moses by God himself. Therefore they should be put above anything else written in The Bible.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    37. Re:look another US-American idiot! by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      We don't want to stoop to the same level as the religious.

    38. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're picking and choosing very specific verses that suit your argument.

      That doesn't make him wrong. Would you rather he picked versus completely unrelated to anything he was saying?

      I've read the whole of the bible twice btw. God directly started wars in the old testament. That sounds like religion giving reasons for war to me, unless you're saying that the Israelite leaders were just pretending that God said something as an excuse for war? *gasp* Would humans ever do something like that, make up gods and beliefs to control people and get their own way? Surely not!

      --
      which is totally what she said
    39. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I don't know if that one deserves scorn, I usually reserve 'scorn' for the Bible.

      I don't see how any person who claims to know what critical thinking is can base their life around the Bible. Harry Potter is more believable than the Bible and I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes a much better moral code.

      If the Bible didn't exist and was just published then nobody would get past the first chapter.

      --
      No sig today...
    40. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      The things you mention are all works of people

      And they're all encouraged or glorified in religious texts. Funny that.

      Now you are the one who is picking and choosing from the bible to try and support your points, making excuses for all the stuff that you are scared people won't agree with, or perhaps that you don't agree with yourself. I hate how compartmentalised people can be about this stuff, so terrified to consider that the whole of their religion might just be bunk.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    41. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Not true. There are faiths that believe that all other religions/holy books are manifestations of the same god and welcome any of them to speak at their temples (in fact they actively invite them...)

      --
      No sig today...
    42. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Umm.. try counting them up. Those are the Ten Commandments that are being referenced in the passage you linked to.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    43. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Dhalka226 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      With all due respect, stop being a fucking moron. Nobody here has suggested killing all Christians. Nobody here has suggested burning a church, much less all churches. To not only ascribe nonsense to people but declare it to be some sort of sexual thrill for them has to make you one of the most shallow, despicable excuses for a human being I have ever seen in my life. One who obviously has nothing intelligent to say, so he just makes shit up to attack as it pleases him . I'm sure you sleep awfully well at night having defeated your invented evils, don't you? Must be awfully hard to lose an argument when you just decide what the other side thinks and says and declare it to be truth.

      For example, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

      Are you truly so dense that you can't separate politics and religion? Lots of people hate Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin, and it has nothing to do with their religion. It has to do with their politics.

      Even if you don't desire death of every religious person, don't you think that some people deserve to be killed? [. . .] I'm sure that most of the Internet would gloat joyfully if either of those people die.

      I'm sure many of them would. What the fuck is your point?

      All else aside, if you can't understand the difference between not caring if somebody dies or feeling the world is better off for it and actively suggesting they should be killed or killing them... well, I was going to ask how dense you could possibly be but at this point the question is becoming rhetorical.

      I would consider somebody like Rush Limbaugh dying to be one of the better things to happen to this country because of the way he simply whips people into partisan furors to serve his own set of interests. It doesn't mean I wish death on him, and it especially doesn't mean I think he should be killed. If he WERE killed, I would expect the person locked in prison for the rest of his life and declare him a murderer, not a hero.

      If you anti-theists really think that the world would be better without religion, then stop bitching on the Internet and start a war with religion already.

      Yes, because clearly instead of talking about things or making a logical argument ("bitching on the Internet" in your little world) the correct solution is to kill everybody who disagrees with you. Holy hell, you really are a whackjob. Do you honestly believe you're one of the "normal[s]?" Because I have a newsflash for you. You're a fool, as bad as any religious or anti-religious nutter out there.

      For that matter, you need to realize that being anti-religion and anti-theist are wildly different things. Believe in god if you want, I really don't give a fuck. Vapor-lock your lips to some religion's ass without thinking thoroughly about it all and what you truly believe, tell everybody they have to believe what you and your buddies believe, and I have major problems with it and with you. And much as I might think the world is better off without you in it, that doesn't cause me to orgasm to the thought of killing you. Sorry to disappoint.

      Let me clue you in, since you're obviously too feeble-minded to reach these realizations on your own. People who don't believe in religion, who don't believe in God, who don't believe in an afterlife believe that this is all there is. They don't support running off and killing people to any degree more than believers do (there are bad apples in both groups, naturally). They don't support fucking each other over. They believe you should be good and tolerant toward one another because you don't get a second chance. Making somebody's life miserable is unconscionable when you can't pretend to believe that no matter how long they live, no matter what you do to them, they'll "live" an eternity longer in perfect bliss with their creator. Not believing in eter

    44. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      Killing all Christians and burning all churches = wet dream of every slashdot anti-theist

      Don't be such a fucking clown. I think Christianity and all religions have it dead wrong, but I don't want to kill everyone who has beliefs. I can understand and even respect some religious beliefs, and I see that religion does provide positive influences in some people's lives, though on a larger scale it has many negative effects.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    45. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I've read the whole of the bible twice btw. God directly started wars in the old testament. That sounds like religion giving reasons for war to me,

      True. I'm just pointing out that the new testament is quite different in that respect (and does that not count? does negative stuff in the OT mean that the NT can't possibly bring something positive?), and that not all wars are divinely inspired. Most wars where religion plays a role, it's really just an excuse for an Us vs. Them war. It could just as easily be about skin colour, ideology or football teams. People tend not to be very picky when it comes to excuses to exclude people.

      *gasp* Would humans ever do something like that, make up gods and beliefs to control people and get their own way? Surely not!

      Isn't that kinda what I said? Politics abuses anything as an excuse to get what they want. Abstract concepts are really popular, apparently.

    46. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Nope, take another look.

      The Bible actively encourages slavery.If 'people' take slaves, or sell their own children to other people as slaves, they're just following what god told them to do.

      Homophobia as well, the Bible tells us to put homosexuals to death, it's not the work of 'people', it's a commandment from God.

      --
      No sig today...
    47. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I don't think you understand what my religion is about. It's not about some verse in Exodus. It's about the NT. It is, in fact, quite explicitly about love. Love for God, and love for your fellow humans.

      According to Matthew 22:36-40, the entire bible hangs on that. If parts of the bible don't seem to agree with this, it might be prudent to question your interpretation of them.

      That's not picking and choosing, that's sticking to what's important. What the single central figure in the bible personally says it's all about.

    48. Re:look another US-American idiot! by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      he said modern religion, not old (thousands of years), nor ancient

      So, in that case substitute praying for paying.

      Stop bashing religion. Paying is a form of grace. More good comes from modern religion than you can imagine.

      That works for, scientology, evangluism, capatilism, neo-psudo-comunism, republicanism etc....

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    49. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      The Bible actively encourages slavery.

      No it doesn't. It acknowledges the existence of it, and limits its abuse. Slavery was dead common in all countries in that part of the world at that time.

      Furthermore, the new testament makes it pretty clear that to God, a slave is not any less than his master. There's a story where Paul helps the runaway slave of a friend, and sends him back as an equal, rather than a slave.

    50. Re:look another US-American idiot! by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      buddhism is a bit like a hindu offshoot.

      there are so many branches of hindu that everyone on the planet could really be considered a kind loose variant of hindu.

      hindu is sort of the belief in a soul or spirit, though some branches do not believe in that.

      The soul can be in one part, or two parts (duelism and none-duelism)

      It could be related to a god, or just be part of nature.

      The key aspect is that at some point you want to become one with everything.

      This is different from western philosophy that view humans as somehow special/separate, though Christianity went a little way towards humans not being so special.
      Eastern philosophies basically say you feel separate but you are not, when will you realise this. And then have a number of ways of achieving that.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    51. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The Bible's pretty clear about which words were written on version 2.0 of the tablets.

      Exodus34:27: Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel."

      It's also very clear about which set of tablets are the Ten Commandments:

      Exodus34:28: Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenantthe Ten Commandments.

      I understand that Christians would prefer the other ones to be The Ten Commandments, but wishing it won't make it so.

      --
      No sig today...
    52. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the company that makes my steak knives also puts profit before safety. their products are very dangerous. if you happen to saw one of them repeatedly across your body, it will cause severe damage and pain.

      the woman suing mcdonalds perhaps wasn't stupid, but she was a fucking pathetic leech who deserves to be sued by her neighbours, when she isn't home her door is locked, when they try to enter they bang their noses on it.

      We are living in a era of diminishing personal responsibility, where everyone is too fucking pathetic to be thinking humans, and blame anything on anyone else. sad.

    53. Re:look another US-American idiot! by moronoxyd · · Score: 1

      peace: without a religion, many wars cease to exist, since there's no "promised land" to fight overy

      Sounds nice, except that religion is most often only an excuse for war, most of the time the actual reasons are greed, the thirst for power, and such like.

    54. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Annorax · · Score: 1

      By far, the ancestors of many, if not most, americans were thrown out of other countries for being weird, overly religious, or generally disliked. As a result, the future population of america was in effect bred to be weird, overly religion and generally dislikable.

      This mean that your ancestors are to blame for kicking our ancestors out and creating this mess to begin with.

      Please watch your mailbox for the "Weird, overly religious, and generally dislikable americans vs. the rest of the world" class action lawsuit notice.

    55. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically, no - It has no gods. The Buddha was a man.

    56. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Killing all Christians and burning all churches = wet dream of every slashdot anti-theist.

      No, the wet dream (if we have one) is for them to get a fucking clue, then start actually being the people they thought they were in their delusions.

      --
      No sig today...
    57. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Just because the NT isn't that bad in the regard of war doesn't mean it negates what wars were caused in the OT. Oh and don't forget about the crusades and Spanish Inquisition or is it b/c those are 100's of years old they don't count OK how about all the terrorists fighting for religion now? Hell on a smaller scale how about abortion clinic bombings? Sure religion brings some good but I'm willing to bet many more people died for their faith or because of someone elses than was ever saved by religion. I mean other than the original10 commandments nothing else was actually written by the hand of god. So the only thing important enough for god to write down himself was a list of rules that are pretty common sense. If that was what Christianity taught and not hate no one would have any problems with it.

    58. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I guess you're a Bahá'í then? It's the only religion I know which pays more than lip service to science and reason, faith in any other religion pretty much precludes critical thinking.

      I'm not familiar with Bahai, but you might not be familiar with all branches of Christianity.

      My church encourages critical thinking, has a lot of mathematicians and scientists among its members, and the level of education is, as far as I can tell, at least, quite a bit higher than that of the average (mostly non-Christian) population. But even that bastion of conservativism and traditionalism, the Vatican, invests quite a bit in science.

      Somebody making generalizing claims that this can not be true, is just not terribly convincing.

    59. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Ok, I over-reacted a bit, but that's because my previous comment was modded down as troll even though I wasn't trying to bash atheists nor anyone else, only trying to defend religion itself by mentioning Ten Commandments. My intention certainly wasn't to defend religious leaders who start wars, deny evolution, prohibit use of condoms or do other stuff which has nothing to do with teaching of Jesus.

      As I wrote in another comment, Ten Commandments are the only thing every Christian is obliged to follow because they are given to Moses by God himself. Everything else in The Bible is written by men and could be a load of crap.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    60. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ooshna · · Score: 1

      "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

      The problem with this verse is that its not taught this way. Its a nice sentiment but historically Christianity has taught people to fear change and to fear or hate people that are different than you. Love your neighbor (unless he is a queer.) Love God unconditionally (and never question him)

    61. Re:look another US-American idiot! by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      A few religious people do that so you blame all religions? There are atheists who have started wars, are racist, are homophobes, are sexist, indoctrinate children, reject science they don't agree with, ignore reason, and spread STDs directly.

      Guess that leaves us agnostics as the only true saints.

    62. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Okay so what are you trying to say the ten commandments are? And are you saying God made a different covenant just because the first set of tablets were smashed?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    63. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Hey he has a point if it wasn't for scientology we would have one of the best episodes of southpark ever. Give credit where credit is do.

    64. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I was a Christian until I was 24, moron. I've read the old testament through twice, and the new testament more times than I've counted.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    65. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter, if you believe the bible then the old testament is as much a part of who the Christian god (and therefore Jesus) is as the new.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    66. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 2, Informative

      You may think so, but apparently even Dalai Lama isn't too fond of atheists and thinks they are no better than religious extremists.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    67. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Oh and don't forget about the crusades and Spanish Inquisition or is it b/c those are 100's of years old they don't count

      No, they don't count because they're political, rather than religious. Religion was just an excuse. The people in power used religion to keep people in line, which makes heresy basically rebellion. The crusades weren't religious, but cultural. "Those people are different and getting closer! Let's go take their stuff!"

      OK how about all the terrorists fighting for religion now?

      Which ones exactly are fighting for religion? It seems to me most are fighting for freedom or against cultural suppression. They feel put down, so they rise up.

      Hell on a smaller scale how about abortion clinic bombings?

      You mean the people who are insane murderers? I'd like to know what kind of religion inspires that kind of murder.

      I'm willing to bet many more people died for their faith

      I'm not denying that. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in, rather than renounce that belief. Is that wrong of those people? Or is it wrong of the people who kill them? (You know, the ones in power who feel their power threatened by people who believe something they can't control?)

      I mean other than the original10 commandments nothing else was actually written by the hand of god. So the only thing important enough for god to write down himself was a list of rules that are pretty common sense. If that was what Christianity taught and not hate no one would have any problems with it.

      That is what Christianity teaches. Or should be teaching. A lot of confused christians keep getting in the way.

      Ghandi once said: "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." (I thought he said it would be irresistible, but this is what Google gave me.)
      It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.

    68. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the mistaken impression that religion provides reasons for war. At best, it provides excuses. Politics provides reasons. Abolishing religion and keeping politics is not going to reduce the number of wars in any way.

      Well, of course since I'm not religious I consider any scripture based justification for war an excuse.

      Still, the less excuses that will do, the better, and the whole "promised land" deal created quite a bit of trouble.

      Not judging people, not hating them for being different, accepting their shortcomings, etc. Of course this can vary quite a lot by religion, but Christianity's core scriptures are pretty big on loving your enemy, forgiving everything, not taking vengeance, considering all humans of equal value. Radical notions at that time, and in fact, they still are. They go rather against human nature, but I consider them very positive.

      Like Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

      If that's how it's supposed to be, you've get the hell of a job to do to fix things.

      On the other hand, I'm not sure this way of doing things is the best idea. If you love your enemy and forgive everything, how do you fight against those you consider that interpret your religion really wrong? For instance, with a mindset like that you're probably not on the side of those who burn abortion clinics, do you try to do anything about them? And does it work?

      In other letters, Paul proposes women for church functions, so it's not as clear-cut as that. It's a popular verse in patriarchical societies, however.

      Which functions you mean? Paul wrote quite a few things on women in churches, but I don't remember seeing anything very progressive. Also, see below.

      Yet lots of churches do ordain women and accept gay marriages.

      Which? The Vatican declared that ordaining women is a crime. For a start, please tell me of which denominations comply with the Bechdel Test for Religion:

      (1) at least one woman in a position of authority;
      (2) who plays a formal, recognized role in shaping doctrine or practice;
      (3) that is binding on male members of that religion.

      Please try to stick to ones of a reasonable size, if there are lots then it shouldn't be difficult.

      Also it seems a schizm is going to happen over the ordaining gays issue.

      Note though that the position of women was pretty awful in for example ancient Greece, before the arrival of Christianity.

      So it got better. Why not make it better still by removing the limits that christianity imposes? There's no reason why improvements can only happen once.

      You're confusing blind obedience with trust. Trust is not mutually exclusive with critical thought. The bible contains quite a bit of philosophical works, and at some point commands to "examine all things and keep the good".

      Please. God demands blind obedience repeatedly. Also I'm not sure what trust even means in this context. With Job for instance its demonstrated that God is perfectly willing to kill children just to make a point, so I don't think the "never mind that" at the last moment was guaranteed by any measure.

      For me at least, a command like "kill somebody" is never valid on its own and must be questioned. I'm not of the sort that would never, ever in any circumstances take a life, but what I'd definitely never do is doing it without an excellent explanation for why it's needed. No amount of trust overrides that.

      You're picking and choosing very specific verses that suit your argument. If you want to do honest criticism, you should read the rest too. And keep an eye on the historical context. (Not something a lot of people are good at, I admit.)

      Heheh, but so do you, and so does everybody else. According to Wikipedia there are about 38000 christian denominations. So what makes you think you've got a more accurate view of it than I do?

    69. Re:look another US-American idiot! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The Catholic Church is effectively a shiny charity organization. The billion or twelve that go into all the gold and artifacts and museums and the bullet proof Popemobile is like the 15 cents or so you spend on pisscoffee at the convenience store. The rest goes to "missions" that have no hope of success, like feeding the poor or sending perfectly healthy priests to leper colonies in third world countries where they can get leprosy and die (but well, they manage to get everyone else to feel a bit better and keep them bathing properly and such, I guess).

    70. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      People have taught people to fear and hate. That doesn't mean that's what Christianity is about.

    71. Re:look another US-American idiot! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      it is a system of philosophy. Pairs well with Catholicism, actually; Jesus was pretty good but nobody really paid attention to him.

    72. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It does matter. It's the essence of what it's all about. If you ignore the words of Jesus, you're ignoring the most important part of the bible (at least from a Christian viewpoint).

    73. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Isn't that kinda what I said? Politics abuses anything as an excuse to get what they want. Abstract concepts are really popular, apparently.

      My point is that I wish people would consider that everything about their religion may be man made. Not just the "politics". Now that I've managed to accept that this is the case with Christianity (very hard when you're brought up believing it as 100% truth your whole life), it's easy to see how it's just as much of a farce as all the other belief systems that people have around the world. There are millions of smart people out there who currently believe in stuff that they'd immediately dismiss as a fairytale if it was presented to them as some other belief system. It's amazing how many people try to poke holes in evolution, saying how statistically improbable it is etc. Just how is it any more probable that there is a god who has always existed with a fully formed intelligence, made of three parts who are apparently completely perfect and happy in each other, yet feel the need to create other beings to worship them to give them more sense of self worth or satisfy some narcissistic urge (very human), etc.. at least stuff like evolution is testable, while most religions word things so that there is no way to prove or disprove that their god is there (yet life for all these religious people is exactly as it is for non religious, etc, the bible even points this out in some places just in case people notice, while in other places it says how the lord will make the good prosper, blah blah.. meh sorry, ranting. I just wish there was a way to deconstruct everyone's thought patterns and beliefs and have them think logically through everything, realising that they're just falling prey to thousands of years of superstition. I'm not saying it's impossible that there are superior beings, or even gods or whatever out there, but I certainly think the bible doesn't hold water.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    74. Re:look another US-American idiot! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Why would you subject yourself to reading the bible through? I wouldn't read anything through, least not more than once. I'm trying to find a good book on Taoism at the moment, and maybe Buddhism but that's trickier. Trying to compare and contrast the deeper philosophy between religions (I have no use for gods) ... it's an enlightenment thing. A lot of religions had enlightened spiritual leaders -- Jesus got nailed to a tree for saying we should try being nice to each other for a change, and Buddha accidentally ate a Death Cap after spending his whole life telling people they should be nice to each other. Mahatma Ghandi was pretty enlightened too, but he didn't get associated with a religion (Jesus - Christianity; Buddha - a substitute for Confucius in various religions).

      I have no interest in studying the whole of the Holy Texts on the Tao and Buddhism. I should add Confucianism to the roster too though. Maybe I'll write a book later.

    75. Re:look another US-American idiot! by pregister · · Score: 2, Informative

      Excellent point. From the linked article:

      "WHEN I was a boy in Tibet, I felt that my own Buddhist religion must be the best — and that other faiths were somehow inferior. Now I see how naïve I was, and how dangerous the extremes of religious intolerance can be today."

    76. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I didn't say ignore the new testament, but why ignore all the rest? Anything that you don't understand you just automatically say "oh well God is definitely real and he's a good guy, so it must be me that's just not understanding here", instead of truly, really, honestly giving consideration to the fact that the bible might just be an entirely human fabrication.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    77. Re:look another US-American idiot! by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's not factually correct. Buddhism doesn't believe in any god, the Buddha is just considered ones revered teacher shown the same respect that one would show any teacher of standing. Which is why the Buddha always gets the highest seat in a room and will typically be given gifts for his teachings on a daily basis.

    78. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      It is of course just as stupid to deny that there could be a god as it is to say that your god definitely exists when there is 0% proof. But I was just pointing out that you can follow Buddhist philosophies without believing in any god (no, I'm not a Buddhist or anything else, I'm pretty agnostic).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    79. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Sure sounds like worship to me. While I have respect for some stuff that dead people have done and taught, I don't make little statues of them and give them gifts.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    80. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Why would you subject yourself to reading the bible through?

      It's what you're told to do - read the bible every day, as well as praying. It helps to keep you brainwashed.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    81. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ooshna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, they don't count because they're political, rather than religious. Religion was just an excuse. The people in power used religion to keep people in line, which makes heresy basically rebellion. The crusades weren't religious, but cultural. "Those people are different and getting closer! Let's go take their stuff!"

      And how do you not think that organized religions do not have rules to keep people in line? Even if the people in power were corrupt its the religions they used to instill the fear they didn't get all the soldiers to fight and torture for them by saying it was for their culture they told them that it was for their religion and their god.

      Which ones exactly are fighting for religion? It seems to me most are fighting for freedom or against cultural suppression. They feel put down, so they rise up.

      I don't know maybe the thousands that are fighting for Sharia Law?

      You mean the people who are insane murderers? I'd like to know what kind of religion inspires that kind of murder.

      The one this group follows apparently

      I'm not denying that. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in, rather than renounce that belief. Is that wrong of those people? Or is it wrong of the people who kill them? (You know, the ones in power who feel their power threatened by people who believe something they can't control?)

      sure that's a nice way to look at it but I was more talking about the millions that died in wars in the name of religion.

      That is what Christianity teaches. Or should be teaching. A lot of confused christians keep getting in the way.

      Ghandi once said: "If Christians would really live according to the teachings of Christ, as found in the Bible, all of India would be Christian today." (I thought he said it would be irresistible, but this is what Google gave me.) It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.

      You pretty much said it for me religions are not what they should be they are corrupt. Todays religions are nothing more than a political system trying to control people.

    82. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ooshna · · Score: 1

      When that is what has been taught for generations that is what it is about. Maybe it used to be about something better but it hasn't been that way for hundred of years.

    83. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Personally? I don't know the will of "god" and I don't believe the Bible is any more divine than Harry Potter.

      What I'm saying is that what the the Bible refers to as the Ten Commandments and what Christians usually quote when asked what the Ten Commandments are are two completely different things, ie. that their belief is based on dogma rather than any form of reason or critical thinking.

      --
      No sig today...
    84. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Homophobia as well, the Bible tells us to put homosexuals to death, it's not the work of 'people', it's a commandment from God.

      Bible is NOT written by God.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    85. Re:look another US-American idiot! by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know, the story of Abraham and Lot always made me think the Christian God is more than a little bit of a sadist. Why exactly would I want to worship a Deity that thinks its hunky dory to ask for the head of one of his loyal follower's children, or makes bets with the enemy that cause one of his most loyal to have his family murdered and to be tortured? If any man did that we'd call him a sick fuck, but a Deity equals that's cool? Then again a whole lot of the bible never made any damned sense to me. Take Lucifer: Here you have the best and the brightest, the number one guy taking a shot at the title. Now he lost the first round but knows they'll be a second shot at the title. So instead of rallying his troops, trying to build a large army and giving them what they need to win, he and his generals are supposed to beat the shit and torture the crap out of those that are gonna be fighting FOR him? WTF? Is he supposed to be retarded?

      As for TFA, ever since we saw that bitch, and I'm sorry but she was an absolute bitch that should have had her kids taken away, sue McDonald's because the lazy heifer fed her kids NOTHING but McDonald's for their ENTIRE life and then sued because they were fat and diabetic, then I knew the court system in this country is completely fucked up. What's next? Ohh I got a blister playing HL2, Valve owes me a million dollars! Oh and seeing those install screens on XP and Windows 7 all day gives me a headache, I want 10 million from MSFT AND a dozen top of the line x360s with lifetime XBL gold AND a pony! (Black 2010 convertible preferably) Give me a fricking break! Is this numbnuts gonna have to actually pay for all the time he wastes of the court, or is that just another bill We, The People get to enjoy?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    86. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Like Gandhi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

      If that's how it's supposed to be, you've get the hell of a job to do to fix things.

      We definitely do. Ghandi is completely correct, as far as I'm concerned.

      On the other hand, I'm not sure this way of doing things is the best idea. If you love your enemy and forgive everything, how do you fight against those you consider that interpret your religion really wrong?

      With words. It's what I'm doing here.

      For instance, with a mindset like that you're probably not on the side of those who burn abortion clinics, do you try to do anything about them? And does it work?

      I'm not aware of any in my country, but I'm all for giving them a fair trial and then locking them up for a good long time.

      A large swathe of American Christianity seems to have thoroughly derailed, and I have no idea how to get that train wreck back on the rails again. I'm confident there are also still some more sensible Christians in the US, though.

      Which functions you mean?

      Deacon is one literally mentioned. My minister/vicar/preacher (or whatever it's called) claims there were more, though.

      Paul wrote quite a few things on women in churches, but I don't remember seeing anything very progressive.

      Not for today perhaps, but for those days, everything he wrote was incredibly progressive.

      Which? The Vatican declared that ordaining women is a crime.

      Who cares what the Vatican declares? Not even all catholics do.

      For a start, please tell me of which denominations comply with the Bechdel Test for Religion:

      (1) at least one woman in a position of authority;
      (2) who plays a formal, recognized role in shaping doctrine or practice;
      (3) that is binding on male members of that religion.

      I've never heard of the Bechdel Test, but my local church has women in the leadership team who shape quite a bit of practice. Plenty of churches of female priests, preachers/ministers/vicars, etc.

      So it got better. Why not make it better still by removing the limits that christianity imposes? There's no reason why improvements can only happen once.

      I'm not sure those limits are really imposed by christianity, but I'm all for removing limits.

      For me at least, a command like "kill somebody" is never valid on its own and must be questioned. I'm not of the sort that would never, ever in any circumstances take a life, but what I'd definitely never do is doing it without an excellent explanation for why it's needed. No amount of trust overrides that.

      I fully agree there.

      Heheh, but so do you, and so does everybody else. According to Wikipedia there are about 38000 christian denominations. So what makes you think you've got a more accurate view of it than I do?

      My impression is that I've got a bit more of an inside view. Mostly, though, I don't know. My interpretation is an interpretation like any other. I arrived at it through quite a bit of critical thought and common sense, but most Christians I meet seem to agree with it for the most part. The people who disagree are mostly atheists or Americans.

    87. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I didn't say ignore the new testament, but why ignore all the rest?

      I'm not saying ignore all the rest, I'm saying read it in the light of the new testament. And that quote from the NT in particular. Some parts are pretty hard, I admit. I'm no ultimate font of wisdom either.

    88. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is what you got out of reading the Bible?

      You read the thing but did you bother to try to comprehend it? Or were you just rote reading? I can plow thru the technical manual of how to build a 777 and at the end still not know how to build a 777.

      Studying the Bible and reading it are 2 different things.

      Being Christian is not about being intolerant, or judgmental, or praying, or going to church, or reading the Bible all the time. It is about worshiping God and believing Jesus is your savior (honestly thats it), some of the previous items are ways you can do that, and some are spoken against directly. Oh Im sure you can come up with many quotes that contradict what I have said. Before you do that please go read the screwtape letters. It will give you a better idea of what is going on.

      It sounds like your in your 20's. Think back to your teen years. That is how older people think of people in their 20's. Many people get out in life and out of any sort of supervision. They then conclude incorrectly that they 'know what life is about'. In your 20s you are just starting to grow out of being a teenager (some it takes until their 30s). Many get to their 90s and still dont work it out. I apologize if this makes you angry but I am showing a mirror of yourself to you.

      Lets be real why you decided to 'not be a Christian'. You got tired of going to church. You are now using whatever excuse you can lay your hands on to not worship God (I did the same thing, and know many who do). You are burned out (hey I was there too). However, as you get older if you ignore your beliefs you will find your life meaningless and hollow. Take it from someone who 'has and is going thru it'. You are burned out on the trappings of being a Christian and forgot what it means to be one.

    89. Re:look another US-American idiot! by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all those things are exclusive to religion... oh wait. Your claim is laughable. Then again, so is the claim that religion is super good. It's really more of a neutral thing.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    90. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Yet we're told to obey it or go to hell...? I dunno, seems to me like getting into heaven is a bit of a crap-shoot if it depends on the Bible.

      If heavenly entrance depends on good works and deeds towards your fellow man then I'm betting it's full of Atheists.

      --
      No sig today...
    91. Re:look another US-American idiot! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The bible's not in English, man. It needed translation, and we have about 30 translations that all say conflicting things.

    92. Re:look another US-American idiot! by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. Christians explicitly recognize that while they may be forgiven for certain actions, that does not mean that they are without consequence. It simply means that the misdeed will not be held against you forever.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    93. Re:look another US-American idiot! by digitig · · Score: 1

      Critical thought is frowned upon in religion it is not encouraged. This is practically the definition of faith.

      I know it would be breaking with /. tradition, but it would be nice if people found out something about the subject before posting. Yes, there are religious groups that frown on critical thinking, and they can be very vocal, but they're far from representative of religion. Pascal, Aquinas, Priestley, Gödel, Berkeley, Descartes, Leibniz and Kant were all religious and great critical thinkers (mainly encouraged by religious institutions), and critical thinking has always been very strongly encouraged in non-fundamentalist religion. To the non-fundamentalist religious, faith is a supplement to reason, not a replacement for it. And for strongly secular examples of why such a supplement is needed, see almost any episode of the original Star Trek. Spock will try to solve everything with "logic", and will be forced by circumstances to step outside logic.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    94. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      And how do you not think that organized religions do not have rules to keep people in line?

      Who says I don't think that? I'm not defending organized religions here. I'm very much against them. Hierarchical organizations are very easy to corrupt. Corrupt the top (which is easy to corrupt, because there's power there), and you've got the rest too. Religion should be about a personal relationship with God, not about blind obedience to some organization.

      The one this group follows apparently

      Scary people. Don't think for a moment that they represent any meaningful part of mainstream christianity. I completely fail to see how anyone could believe themselves to be christian and do what they do.

      sure that's a nice way to look at it but I was more talking about the millions that died in wars in the name of religion.

      That a war is fought in the name of religion doesn't mean that that's what it's really about. Iraq was invaded in the name of WMDs, but nobody outside the US believed that one for a minute.

      You pretty much said it for me religions are not what they should be they are corrupt. Todays religions are nothing more than a political system trying to control people.

      Not all. But way too many.

    95. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Shame on whoever modded that flamebait "insightful". (S)He must have been a European xenophobe that knows nothing about the USA except stupid stereotypes. I, for one, am offended.

    96. Re:look another US-American idiot! by digitig · · Score: 1

      B: the reason why she won the case was that was shown that Ms Donalds put profit before safety. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

      It's a good job you USAnians dumped the tea. In tea-drinking countries (UK, Ireland, India, China, etc), tea is as served as close to boiling point as possible, and we even have rituals to make sure of that ("pot to kettle, never kettle to pot..."). In India, tea is often served with a second, empty, cup, so the customer can pour the tea from one to the other until it's cool enough to drink. Somehow we tea-drinkers manage without incinerating ourselves.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    97. Re:look another US-American idiot! by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      I think it's a sad state of the slashdot moderation system when someone espousing that a group is rascists, homophobes, and STD spreaders gets modded insightful and someone saying a group espouses peace and tolerance in the same form and conversational tone gets modded flamebait. They're either both flamebait or they're both contributing to the discussion at hand. You can't mod just one, it's not -1 disagree.

    98. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Which version of the "Ten Commanments" should we follow?

      The unnamed set of rules listed in Exodus 20 or the explicitly named commandments given in Exodus 34?

      --
      No sig today...
    99. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Lythrdskynrd · · Score: 1

      Honestly, this isn't specifically a response to the immediate parent - but the whole length of the thread that has gone off on religion.

      WTF?

      I've not got the mod points to mark the whole of this stuff Offtopic ... this really has nothing to do with the court case of a dude who's addicted to a shitty version of World of Warcraft.

    100. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Informative

      McDonald's was the stupid one. All she wanted was the medical bills for her 3rd degree burns paid; I think that's quite reasonable. McDonalds said "No way, bitch, sue us". Dumb. They deserved getting their asses handed to them on a platter, they BEGGED for it.

    101. Re:look another US-American idiot! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The things you mention are all works of people. Things people have done with or without religion. They're products of conservativism and traditionalism, and have very little to do with religion.

      You could also argue that religion is the work of people and any good or bad from it stems in essence from people. Like you said it's mainly an excuse rather than a reason and there's plenty excuses if you want one.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    102. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcgrew · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So what's the good bit?

      Feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, counseling the bereaved, trying to talk youth out of a destructive lifestyle...

      War.

      Wars are started by pseudo-religious people who use it for their own personal gain. War is ALWAYS about land, power, control; all are the atithesis of almost every religion on earth.

      Racism.

      Citation? Example?

      Indoctrination of children.

      Depending on the Indoctrination, it can be a good or bad thing. What is so bad about Indoctrinating your children to love one another, to not steal, to be peaceful?

      Rejection of science/reason.

      There are a lot of religious scientists.

      Rejection of contraception leading to the spread of STDs.

      AFAIK that's only ONE (Catholicism) religion out of all the different religions. Besides, what makes STDs any different than any other diseases? If you're going to bash people for not wearing a condom, bash others for not getting flu shots or for going to work or to the grocery store sick.

    103. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I was surprised about that too. I usually have a bit more faith in the Slashdot moderators.

      (It doesn't really put a dent in my karma, though. Whether you believe in that or not.)

    104. Re:look another US-American idiot! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      As I said, just check The Ten Commandments. Especially those saying that you should not kill, rape or steal.

      The first half are pretty much just about worshipping god then you have some good morals which aren't exactly Christian exclusive. Basically don't be a dick, and it doesnt mention rape at all.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    105. Re:look another US-American idiot! by TFAFalcon · · Score: 1

      How can you so easily separate religion and politics? Many religions have people that are supposed to act as conduits for gods wisdom. So if they order you to do something then those orders are definitely a religious matter.

      Take the crusades for example. Popes might have called for them for political reasons, but once they did, didn't the crusade become a religious cause for the people involved?

      The same can be said for suicide bombers and other terrorists. If they believe that blowing people up is according to their religion, then their actions are a religious matter.

      You can't just decide that, since you feel that a persons actions aren't how YOU understand their religion, they aren't following their faith.

      It's not the teachings that are wrong. It's the people.

      But what if the teachings themselves include, for example, orders to kill heretics? If religious leaders admit that parts of their holy texts no longer apply, and that they were written by man in the first place, why not change them? It's been done many times in the past.

    106. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The Bhuddists worship life itself. But when I was in Thailand in the USAF, where most people are Bhuddist, they seemed to be polytheistic. They even had these little ornate things that looked like bird houses for the spirits, gods, demons, and what not to live in.

    107. Re:look another US-American idiot! by xmousex · · Score: 1

      than you can imagine.

      +1 funny. Aww mods have no sense of humor.

    108. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      You still haven't given any evidence for what you're saying though.. I don't really see the point in it, trying to say that the commonly accepted ten commandments are not the "real" ten commandments, especially when you don't even believe the bible is true?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    109. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Luckily for us, all of those versions are available online. The site I linked to has 21 English versions and many foreign versions, maybe you can point out where the conflicts between the versions are...

      --
      No sig today...
    110. Re:look another US-American idiot! by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      works as a joke.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    111. Re:look another US-American idiot! by SirGeek · · Score: 1

      McDonald's was the stupid one. All she wanted was the medical bills for her 3rd degree burns paid; I think that's quite reasonable. McDonalds said "No way, bitch, sue us". Dumb. They deserved getting their asses handed to them on a platter, they BEGGED for it.

      So if you sold someone some pizza and they shoved a piece of the melted cheese onto their "nether region", and they got burns, its your fault ?

      What person in their right mind, regardless of "how hot" something is puts an OPEN container of coffee between their thighs ? If someone said "I put my hot coffee between my thighs and I got burned - Its your fault." came to me I'd say sue too.. because I'd think there is no way this can be my fault.

    112. Re:look another US-American idiot! by jayme0227 · · Score: 1

      Peace: See The IRA, Al Qaeda
      tolerance, acceptance, equality: See Salem Witch Trials, Proposition 8, Slavery, Westboro Baptist Church
      Taking care of your family: See honor killings
      Critical though: See Intelligent Design
      Responsibility: See Catholic Sex abuse cases

      Yes, religion can be used for some great things, but every area that you listed can be provided with counterexamples of how religion can be used for evil purposes that fly in the face of what many believe to be the main tenets of modern religions.

      --
      But then I realized the cable was blue, so I only gave it one star. I hate blue.
    113. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      peace: without a religion, many wars cease to exist

      Can you name a single 20th century war that was fought over religion? Look at American wars -- WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, Iraq II, were all fought over land, other resources, power, and secular ideology. Almost all wars are. In fact, I can think of only a few in all of history that were fought over religion.

      acceptance: of what you mean more specifically?

      In the Christian religion, it means not just acceptance but unquenchable love. "Love those who hate you, do good to those who persecute you." It means being nonjudgemental -- "Judge not, lest you be judged yourelf." Christians are supposed to hate sin while loving the sinner. Most other religions are similar from what I know of them.

      Did Abraham exericse a lot of critical thought in pondering whether to sacrifice his son?

      He allegedly spoke directly to his God; and he was created by his God in his God's image. Do you have the right to tell a computer program you wrote to kill a child process it has running? Would you expect it to argue with you unless you had programmed it to?

    114. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Yet we're told to obey it or go to hell...?

      We're told so by short-sighted people, not by God. Religion isn't about worshipping short-sighted people, it's about worshipping God.

      And Heaven (if something along the Christian concept of Heaven exists) might be indeed full of Atheists. I seriously doubt it could be full of people who committed atrocities in the name of God.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    115. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err... Jesus specifically refers to the commandments (Matthew 19:16-19) and the first one he lists is not murdering....

    116. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you're a child raper and moved to another church, then there's no consequence.

    117. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Troggie87 · · Score: 1

      Being a little nitpicky here, but this isn't true. Several of the eastern religious variants make no claim to authority, and readily accept western religion as a valid expression of their own understanding of existence. Hence things like Christian Buddhists, and the fact that Hindus don't generally start religious wars.

      And further back, most of the polytheistic religions in ancient times were highly inclusive. The whole "believe in my God or die" thing is more a trait of monotheistic religion, which is probably most of your western experience.

    118. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I was an honest believer in Jesus as my saviour from 14 to ~24. And before that I believed in the existence of Jesus since I was a toddler.

      I'm quite aware of what devout Christians consider to be a real Christian, ie anyone who believes Jesus died for their sins. Sure the bible doesn't say you have to read it and pray all the time to be a Christian, but it's widely regarded that if you are a Christian you will be doing these things because you want to. If you don't do these things people tend to think something must be wrong.

      I'm not angry at all, you are generally presenting your opinions in a fairly respectful way, apart from the blind assumptions, which are a little arrogant.

      I didn't get tired of going to church, I continued to go for many months even during the doubting phase that caused me to eventually stop going. A few months before I stopped going I was actually feeling more "spiritually alive" and committed than I ever had been. I was very used to going to church twice every Sunday, having done so since I was about 3. Sometimes I'd go along to the midweek prayer meetings, I was going to youth events on Saturdays, and going to help out at "Christianity Explored" courses when we ran them etc. I used to have discussions online even in places here like Slashdot arguing for Christianity being the one true faith, etc.

      My enlightenment came not through becoming tired of going to Church, but through various doubts that developed over the years, and one relationship in particular that brought me down pretty low and in a state such that I was able to question my beliefs seriously. Everyone has "doubts", but most people never actually consider seriously that their god might not exist for example.. they just think that there must be something wrong with themselves rather than something wrong with what they're being taught. I appreciate your concern, but I seriously am happier this way, the last couple of years haven't exactly been perfect, but my outlook on life has been so much better since I've started to take responsibility and control of my own life rather than choose to believe that there is some deity in control of everything.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    119. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Cwix · · Score: 1

      This is absolutely correct. Anyone who says differently needs to take a Comparative Religions course at your local institute of higher education.

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    120. Re:look another US-American idiot! by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      If you think buddhists don't believe in gods you either are stupid or severely misinformed. Not only do they believe in gods they believe in dozens and dozens of gods. I should know, I have in laws who are buddhists.

      Like any religion Buddhism has countless sects. I'm sure there are some sects, especially the sort that seem to be popular in Hollywood, that are more secular in nature. Just like there are sects of Christianity that are drastically different from the more common forms.

    121. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 2, Informative

      Like any religion Buddhism has countless sects. I'm sure there are some sects, especially the sort that seem to be popular in Hollywood, that are more secular in nature. Just like there are sects of Christianity that are drastically different from the more common forms.

      Exactly, so believing in gods is not one of the basic things that makes Buddhism Buddhism.

      I wasn't going by Hollywood, while I was checking what I was saying about Buddhism and Atheism I was using this link: http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/buddhaatheism.htm

      It does say:

      The many mythological creatures and beings that populate Mahayana Buddhism art and literature are often called "gods" or "deities." But, again, just believing in them is not the point.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    122. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'm just saying that you can be a Buddhist without believing in a god, but there are many Buddhists who happen to also believe in gods (which are not necessarily anything to do with Buddha).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    123. Re:look another US-American idiot! by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I find that atheists are the most obnoxious, elitist group of people of any faith. They carry themselves with this air of superiority like they've got the universe all figured out. Agnostics are far, far more open-minded. And yes, atheism is a faith. It's faith in the concept that there is no God.

      These people love to blame religion for all the ills of the world. It's no different than this jerk blaming a game for his own addictive personality. People can get addicted to anything even work.

      The fact is that even if everyone were atheists we'd still have wars, rejection of science and reason, oppression and any other social ill you can imagine. These are human failings not religious failings. Religion is merely a tool. Religion is what gives people justification; it's how people convince themselves they're right. But humans don't need religion to convince themselves they're right and everyone else is wrong. The perfect example? Atheism.

      Religions have helped humans come up with explanations for why things happen, why the world is the way it is. But I think on a more fundamental level religion is a convenient method of conveying a code of morals. Clearly you can have morals without religion, but this facilitates the message and gives people something to strive for. It conveys an ideal. Of course humans also do a good job of corrupting everything they touch, but again that's not a failing inherent to religion.

      When you look at any religion from this perspective they're good for humanity. What are the fundamentals? Don't kill, don't steal and care for the less fortunate. What's wrong with any of this?

      Countless wars have been fought under the banner of religion. There have also been many more wars where religion has not been a motivating factor. Lets not be naive. The ultimate goal wasn't to impose religion. The goal is a drive for power, wealth and territory. Socioeconomic forces drive nations to war. Again, religion is used as the tool to justify wholesale murder and destruction. But even without religion they'd be fighting that war.

      Want to be an atheist? That's perfectly acceptable. It's as acceptable and reasonable as someone choosing to be religious. But there's no need to revise history and make unfounded claims in order to convince yourself that you're in the right and somehow enlightened.

    124. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The McDonald's coffee wasn't just coffee hot, it was boiling hot; far hotter than anyone would expect coffee to be and far hotter than coffee should be. You're sitting in a car with a cup of coffee it's going to be over your lap. With normal coffee if you spill it it's going to hurt like hell, but you're not going to need medical attention. McDonald's coffee gave her third degree burns. It looks to me like McDonald's was the negligent one.

      Pizza is expected to be firey hot when it comes out of the oven. Coffee isn't expected to be just a few degrees below boiling; that is, unless you get it from McDonalds. Its coffee is insanely hot; I always put ice in it to cool it down enough to drink, otherwise I'd have to wait an hour for it to be drinkable.

      McDonald's coffee is stupidly hot.

    125. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      The Old Testament forbids work of any sort on Sundays (or Saturdays if you insist). You're supposed to prepare the food the night before and do the washing up the day after. The Jews try their best but I don't know any Christians who obey that one.

      In the New Testament Jesus says to give away all your worldly goods and that God will provide for you. If you own a car or a TV or a house or a cell phone or a gold ring or whatever then it's going to be as hard to get into Heaven as it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle (ie. impossible). I don't personally know any Christians (or Jews) who gave away all their worldly goods. I did once see some people in Rome who were wearing sacks (literally!) I guess they might get in so long as they manage to do all the other stuff as well.

      In short ... even by the very simplest interpretation of the rules 99.99999% of all Christians are going straight to Hell.

      --
      No sig today...
    126. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with Bahai, but you might not be familiar with all branches of Christianity

      I guess not ... I just assume that if you believe in the Bible then you're not a critical thinker despite the label you put on yourself.

      even that bastion of conservativism and traditionalism, the Vatican, invests quite a bit in science.

      Only in the science which they find convenient, and mostly so that they can say "We're scientists too!"

      --
      No sig today...
    127. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Abstrackt · · Score: 2, Informative

      So if you sold someone some pizza and they shoved a piece of the melted cheese onto their "nether region", and they got burns, its your fault ?

      What person in their right mind, regardless of "how hot" something is puts an OPEN container of coffee between their thighs ? If someone said "I put my hot coffee between my thighs and I got burned - Its your fault." came to me I'd say sue too.. because I'd think there is no way this can be my fault.

      Regarding your pizza example: no, they'd just be an idiot.

      Regarding McDonald's: "McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180–190 F (82–88 C). At that temperature, the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Prior to her lawsuit, there had been approximately 700 other burn cases involving McDonald's between 1982 and 1992." (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants)

      I agree it wasn't a good idea to put the coffee in her lap but she spent eight days in a hospital, required skin grafts and two years of medical treatment just because she spilled it on herself. I don't know if you've ever ended up with a hot beverage in your lap but it usually just hurts for an hour and gets a little red; it doesn't involve a trip to the hospital. Her original plan was to settle with McDonald's to cover her medical costs and they offered her $800. After that, they filed a suit for gross negligence for providing "unreasonably dangerous" and "defectively manufactured" coffee.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
    128. Re:look another US-American idiot! by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      hardly surprising the west is capitalist [free will] and the east is communist [you are one with everything].

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    129. Re:look another US-American idiot! by JoesRagingBileDuct · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is completely wrong. Buddhism is a religion but you could claim that it is not a theology. There is a difference. It is a religion because it involves things like souls and the afterlife/reincarnation. It is the combination of a philosophy and a fairy tale, a way of living your life and a fantastical reason why it should be that way. That is pretty much the definition of a religion. Now, in most Asian countries, the "Buddhas" are treated as gods. Why? Well because when they converted to Buddhism they took their old gods and made them enlightened ones (Buddhas). The same way that old African gods became saints in places where Christianity took over. The same story is repeated every place one religion comes to supplant another. In traditional (Indian) Buddhism, this is not the case, they accepted the old Hindu stories as useful parables but mostly moved on from their old beliefs.

    130. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      Must be awfully hard to lose an argument when you just decide what the other side thinks and says and declare it to be truth.

      But that's what people like George Carlin and Bill Maher love to do when they talk about Christians. It made them very popular among Atheists. Why am I not entitled to use same methods as them?

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    131. Re:look another US-American idiot! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Okay, so can you explain where the "completely wrong" bit comes in? I don't see any of that that disagrees with what I said. You can be a Buddhist that happens to worship gods, but you don't have to worship anything to be a Buddhist.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    132. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Religions are exclusive....

      That is an untrue generalization.
      For example Shinto : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinto

    133. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Facebeast · · Score: 0

      Want to be an atheist? That's perfectly acceptable. It's as acceptable and reasonable as someone choosing to be religious. But there's no need to revise history and make unfounded claims in order to convince yourself that you're in the right and somehow enlightened.

      Bollocks. The burden of proof is to prove that god exists. As a "rational agnostic" there is not an equal likelyhood of God existing or not existing. That simply isn't true, since there is no evidence whatsoever to support the existence of God, every day that passes the probability of him existing fades to zero. And even worse he is no more likely to exist than any other crackpot ideas you can think of (Thetans, anyone?).

      I agree that it is rational to be agnostic over atheistic, denying the possibility of something we cannot definitely prove is as irrational as believing it is definately true. But when the probability of god is so low that he is no more or less likely to exist than the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible intangible silent unicorn, or Russell's teapot, "rational agnosticism" tends towards very-nearly-atheism to such a point that it becomes a mere semantic difference.

      I would imagine that the majority of racists are not the smug closed minded "just a faith in no god" morons you suggest, but very well informed "99.9%-no-agnostic-but-I-call-myself-atheist-it's-easier".

      Consider this difference:

      If someone proved categorically there was a God tomorrow, the majority of atheists would be eating humble pie and choosing a religion to join.

      If someone proved the opposite beyond all doubt, ie. that no god can possibly exist, the vast majority of religious people would reject the evidence and carry on as if nothing happened.

      As for the original point, I think it was Bertrand Russell who once said something relevant:

      "A good man will do good deeds, whilst an evil man will do evil deeds. But for a good man to do evil deeds requires religion"

    134. Re:look another US-American idiot! by AequitasVeritas · · Score: 1

      Sounds like he follows this saying:

      The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not.
      -Eric Hoffer (1902 - 1983)

    135. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, that is true; and Thailand was the only place I met a lot of Bhuddists. There may well be Bhuddists in other places who don't have those gods and demons.

    136. Re:look another US-American idiot! by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      If there were no religion, people would find another excuse to be racists or homophobes. After all, communists also did most of the things you mentioned and they rejected religion. And don't give me that crap "communism is good in theory, it's the power-hungry people who abused it". The same can be said for religion. As I said, just check The Ten Commandments. Especially those saying that you should not kill, rape or steal.

      The point is, did religion every really prevent that stuff from happening? Not on a large scale it didn't. Maybe on a rare personal scale. Usually, the person or people were going to do whatever it was they wanted to do and religion, far from putting the brakes on the wholesale slaughter, actually was twisted to support it. So why bother with religion in the first place?

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    137. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      With words. It's what I'm doing here.

      And if it doesn't work?

      I'm not aware of any in my country, but I'm all for giving them a fair trial and then locking them up for a good long time.

      That seems to conflict with the previous idea of loving your enemy and forgiving them. Or is jail a form of forgiveness? Also that's a very secular approach.

      Deacon is one literally mentioned. My minister/vicar/preacher (or whatever it's called) claims there were more, though.

      That seems to be a contentious issue. As far as I gather, the bible contains arguments both for and against, people pick whatever they like more. Note how the site mentions that women should still be restricted by the limitations mentioned by Paul.

      Not for today perhaps, but for those days, everything he wrote was incredibly progressive.

      Ok, so why still have it in the current bible?

      I'm not sure those limits are really imposed by christianity, but I'm all for removing limits.

      How do you decide which limits are okay to remove?

      I fully agree there.

      So why do you need religion at all? If you'd tell to your own God, "wait a sec, what am I doing this for?" then clearly you're exercising judgement that's not coming from your religion. Your sense of right and wrong therefore doesn't have a divine source to it. Might as well go all the way then.

    138. Re:look another US-American idiot! by TheCycoONE · · Score: 1

      There is a lot of Ascetic or Buddhist like teachings in the new testament; which is why medieval monks led such humble lifestyles.

      I think it's fair to say that Jesus was teaching an entirely different philosophy than was preached by the profits who were said to have prophesied his coming.

      I think I can also say that applying current western cultural values to ancient texts as a method of ridiculing them is extremely ethnocentric. Of course the closer you get to modern western culture the more agreeable the beliefs will be, and the less agreeable they would be to an ancient middle-eastern tribe.

      To abstract this away from religion; Imagine you were a Spartan judging Athenians, then imagine you are an Athenian judging Spartans. Also imagine you are an Athenian or Spartan imagining the ideal person.

    139. Re:look another US-American idiot! by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that we have a court system that is more than willing to indulge those nutjobs.

    140. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Zalbik · · Score: 1

      You may think so, but apparently even Dalai Lama isn't too fond of atheists and thinks they are no better than religious extremists.

      Hmmm...here's the only paragraph from that link where the Dalai Lama mentions atheism:

      Though intolerance may be as old as religion itself, we still see vigorous signs of its virulence. In Europe, there are intense debates about newcomers wearing veils or wanting to erect minarets and episodes of violence against Muslim immigrants. Radical atheists issue blanket condemnations of those who hold to religious beliefs. In the Middle East, the flames of war are fanned by hatred of those who adhere to a different faith.

      Having a bit of trouble with reading comprehension? He specifically mentions "Radical atheists", not atheism in general...

    141. Re:look another US-American idiot! by sjames · · Score: 1

      But only if you also do the penance the priest gives you.

    142. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ooshna · · Score: 1
      So pretty much your view of religion is that it brings

      Peace, tolerance, acceptance, equality, taking good care of your family, critical thought, responsibility.

      but

      I'm not defending organized religions here. I'm very much against them. Hierarchical organizations are very easy to corrupt. Corrupt the top (which is easy to corrupt, because there's power there), and you've got the rest too

      and according to this 2007 graph thats 51% of the population (only including Christians and Islams which I know are hierarchical though some of the other 32% probably have some sort of hierarchy as well) even if we cut that figure in half that's a quarter of the population that are members of a corrupt religion. That's over a billion people and we both no I am low balling here.

      Scary people. Don't think for a moment that they represent any meaningful part of mainstream christianity. I completely fail to see how anyone could believe themselves to be christian and do what they do.

      Yet it happens all the time justifying killing so its ok with your religion whether its fighting in a war (any war) or being a suicide bomber. Thou shall not kill (unless you join the army then its fine)

      That a war is fought in the name of religion doesn't mean that that's what it's really about. Iraq was invaded in the name of WMDs, but nobody outside the US believed that one for a minute.

      Your right people outside the US know its a religious war or a war for oil and since gas prices here are still over $2.50 a gallon guess which one is more likely of the two.

      Not all. But most. There fix that for you. Though religion has bought some good to the world it has brought much more harm than good. Religion was needed hundred and thousands of years ago to help explain what we couldn't understand and to bring people together to help one another but that time has past and civilization is far enough a long that religion has become a hindrance and is now holding us back from moving forward be it socially or scientifically.

    143. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you name a single 20th century war that was fought over religion?

      The whole Israel/Palestine conflict is over whose god promised who what land. Add in some radical muslim shit... 9/11, certain cartoonists, and so on. Anyhoo... the observation that religion leads to war wasn't limited to the 20th century.

    144. Re:look another US-American idiot! by nacturation · · Score: 1

      My church encourages critical thinking, has a lot of mathematicians and scientists among its members, and the level of education is, as far as I can tell, at least, quite a bit higher than that of the average (mostly non-Christian) population.

      Did they publish a peer-reviewed study applying their critical thinking to the existence of god? Did they perform an experiment, stating their hypothesis, and testing that hypothesis in order to arrive at the conclusion that god exists? Were the methods used rigorous and unbiased? Was the experiment repeatable, with others able to replicate very similar results? What is the accuracy of their conclusion?

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    145. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      And if it doesn't work?

      Then I keep trying.

      That seems to conflict with the previous idea of loving your enemy and forgiving them. Or is jail a form of forgiveness? Also that's a very secular approach.

      If they're honestly sorry for what they did and promise not to kill people again, I'm all for second chances. Then again, if they're aware that what they did was wrong and regret it, they might agree that a prison sentence is only fair. In the end, though, they're not my enemy, nor did they wrong me in any way, so it's not really up to me to forgive them. If the family of their victims forgive them, who am I to object?

      By the way, secular law is not invalid in any way. There's nothing wrong with following the law. Well, unless that law is wrong, of course. (I'm also a strong believer in civil disobedience.)

      As far as I gather, the bible contains arguments both for and against, people pick whatever they like more.

      It's a flexible book in some areas. Use what works for you. It leaves a lot of room for personal judgment (and the NT is quite clear about that too). In any case, there's no fundamental reason why women should not ever hold important positions in a church, though. Other than "because Paul said so", but considering the core tenets of the bible, that's not a terribly strong argument.

      Note how the site mentions that women should still be restricted by the limitations mentioned by Paul.

      That's their interpretation. It's not universal. I certainly disagree. Had it been such an important issue, it would have been mentioned outside of Timothy too.

      Ok, so why still have it in the current bible?

      Why not? It's part of the thing. I prefer reading it in the social and historical context over short-sighted revisionism.

      How do you decide which limits are okay to remove?

      Common sense. Some are helpful, some are harmful.

      So why do you need religion at all? If you'd tell to your own God, "wait a sec, what am I doing this for?" then clearly you're exercising judgement that's not coming from your religion. Your sense of right and wrong therefore doesn't have a divine source to it. Might as well go all the way then.

      All the way where exactly? The fact that I can think for myself doesn't automatically imply God has no validity anymore. I'm sure there are people who need God more than I do (ooh, a hint of hubris there), but that doesn't mean I don't need him at all.

    146. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      I'm not familiar with Bahai, but you might not be familiar with all branches of Christianity

      I guess not ... I just assume that if you believe in the Bible then you're not a critical thinker despite the label you put on yourself.

      Man, did you just condemn a lot of influential philosophers. Kant not a critical thinker? Descartes and Erasmus not critical thinkers?

    147. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      If they're honestly sorry for what they did and promise not to kill people again, I'm all for second chances. Then again, if they're aware that what they did was wrong and regret it, they might agree that a prison sentence is only fair. In the end, though, they're not my enemy, nor did they wrong me in any way, so it's not really up to me to forgive them. If the family of their victims forgive them, who am I to object?

      Who said anything about killing people? I said "burn abortion clinics". Certainly, people can die from things like that, but there are more things to it.

      Actions like these are a kind of terrorism. The intent is not just to harm a single person/place, but to intimidate a group of people. Even if the main target forgives the perpetrator, there's plenty harm that remains, and I don't think it's possible to have a large and largely undetermined mass of people forgive something. In the US it's also a federal crime, and no amount of forgiveness from the direct victims will stop the government from going ahead with the process.

      IMO, it makes for an interesting question precisely for that reason. You can't just say "I would forgive" and be done. What about the harm to the society?

      By the way, secular law is not invalid in any way. There's nothing wrong with following the law. Well, unless that law is wrong, of course. (I'm also a strong believer in civil disobedience.)

      Certainly not, but your reply was most curious. First you profess a religious position, then when I ask what would you do seem to forget about what you just said, and answer just like an atheist might. It's like you're religious in theory but not in practice.

      It's a flexible book in some areas. Use what works for you. It leaves a lot of room for personal judgment (and the NT is quite clear about that too). In any case, there's no fundamental reason why women should not ever hold important positions in a church, though. Other than "because Paul said so", but considering the core tenets of the bible, that's not a terribly strong argument.

      This and the next few paragraphs are interesting. Do you ever worry you might overstep your bounds and go to hell as a result, or the right intention is all that matters? And with such a tolerant doctrine, is belief needed at all, or good deeds would be sufficient?

      All the way where exactly? The fact that I can think for myself doesn't automatically imply God has no validity anymore. I'm sure there are people who need God more than I do (ooh, a hint of hubris there), but that doesn't mean I don't need him at all.

      Where exactly you'll know better than I. Secular humanism maybe.

      But given all this, what do you need a god for, why does it have validity, and what do you find in the bible or any other such source that you can't find somewhere else?

    148. Re:look another US-American idiot! by ZeRu · · Score: 1

      He specifically mentions "Radical atheists", not atheism in general...

      Well that makes him quite different than the typical Internet (slashdot, digg, reddit, you name it) religion-hater.

      --
      If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    149. Re:look another US-American idiot! by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Who said anything about killing people? I said "burn abortion clinics".

      Somehow I read "bomb" instead of "burn", and assumed (possibly incorrectly) that it was an attempt at someone's life, rather than an attempt to destroy property.

      Whatever the case, the big question from a religious point of view is: do they honestly regret what they did? If they do, are they willing to do everything they can to repay the damaged property? There's not much in the way of sin that can not be forgiven, biblically speaking.

      But to be honest, I think this is all pretty theoretical. Is it very likely that these people will regret their actions? If you resort to that level of terrorism, you've got to be pretty full of yourself.

      From a societal point of view, it's clearly a crime, and deserves punishment. Not to mention the fact that if they want to keep doing it, they're clearly a threat to society.

      In the US it's also a federal crime, and no amount of forgiveness from the direct victims will stop the government from going ahead with the process.

      And rightly so. It is the government's job, after all. You can't go condoning people intentionally burning down stuff.

      Certainly not, but your reply was most curious. First you profess a religious position, then when I ask what would you do seem to forget about what you just said, and answer just like an atheist might. It's like you're religious in theory but not in practice.

      The religious aspect and the secular aspect are very different. You can be forgiven and still go to jail. In fact, you can love them and still think they need to go to jail.

      This and the next few paragraphs are interesting. Do you ever worry you might overstep your bounds and go to hell as a result, or the right intention is all that matters? And with such a tolerant doctrine, is belief needed at all, or good deeds would be sufficient?

      The right intention is definitely important. According to 1 Corinthians 13, it is the only thing that matters. Am I worried I might go to hell? Not really. I have faith in God. Whether belief is needed at all, I don't know. Sometimes the bible is all about faith, sometimes it's all about good intentions (love). Do you need both? Is either one enough? Somewhere it even says that good deeds for the wrong intentions are still better than nothing. In the end, only the grace of God can save us. And personally, I hope that grace is not withheld from atheists or people from different religions who lived such a life of love.

      But given all this, what do you need a god for,

      Salvation, I guess?

      why does it have validity, and what do you find in the bible or any other such source that you can't find somewhere else?

      What I find is, I think, a hint of truth. Not the complete truth, nor do I think it's undiluted, nor the only source of truth. But what I get out of it most of all, is a sign saying "truth that way -->". That, and the trust that I'm safe. Which is certainly a nice feeling.

    150. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Utah
      Yet somehow I'm resisting the temptation to make an account just so I can Mod you +1 funny

    151. Re:look another US-American idiot! by alexo · · Score: 1

      Peace

      Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

      tolerance

      If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

      acceptance

      Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is broken-footed, or broken-handed, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the lord do sanctify them.

      equality

      Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

      taking good care of your family

      If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

      critical thought

      Trust in the Lord with all your heart; and don't lean on your own understanding. In all things acknowledge him, and he shall direct your way.

      responsibility.

      O lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

    152. Re:look another US-American idiot! by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      This whole War wouldn't happen if we didn't have religion thing is stupid.

      The wars and the greed and all the conquering done were dreamed up by a real person first. Religion was the tool they used to get people to do their bidding. This is a huge mistake made by many anti religious people. It wasn't the religion that caused all these evils. Evil just is. Religion was just the tool used to perpetrate said evil. Ironic isn't it?

    153. Re:look another US-American idiot! by flowwolf · · Score: 1

      I love when Family Guy sums up the Abraham story in one single moment. The walk down the mountain with his son. "You want to tell me what the hell that was all about?"

    154. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      "Buddhas" ? The only time when Buddha is referred to in the plural, is when talking about statues of him. There has only ever been a single Buddha, and it's made abundantly clear that he was human, even after he reached enlightenment.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    155. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Just as you can easily find examples that prove the opposite. Islam is a modern-day religion, is it not ? Kill the infidel. Let's have a look about tolerance and acceptance of gay people, in quite a few modern religions. Equality of women ? The catholics are turning out to be very good at taking care of the family - especially the younger members; and responsibility for that is of course taken by all involved.

      And I'm not even going to bother citing an example of critical thought.

      Yes, much good comes from religion, in the form of arts, morals and what have you. Unfortunately, much evil also comes from *organized* religion, where people get addicted to power over others. It's a two-edged sword, and don't delude yourself about which edge has dulled over the centuries.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    156. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      You also have to mean it, and GOD KNOWS ! *cough*

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    157. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      No it's not. There's practically no religious overtones to the conflict at all. On the Jewish side, at least, many of those who most strongly believe they have a Biblical right to the land do not believe that the State of Israel should exist.

      It is a fight over land, just like most wars throughout history.

    158. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You don't know Classical Hebrew. The word used in Exodus means murder, not (just) kill. Not necessarily premeditated murder, by the way. More like killing without just cause.

    159. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It also seems to be a Christian and/or Islamic ideal. Judaism doesn't care at all what non-Jews believe. It is a tenet that bad things will happen to those that don't believe in God, but God doesn't punish them directly; rather he allows bad things to happen. And of course there are perks for believers (even non-Jewish), but what religion doesn't have that?

    160. Re:look another US-American idiot! by JoesRagingBileDuct · · Score: 1

      You may want to look at these articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_(disambiguation). The term buddha means "enlightened one". In Buddhism, the goal of any soul is to reach enlightenment and become a buddha. What generally happens is that a "saint" or god from a previous religion gets renamed a buddha when the culture converts. It actually gets complicated as you get into the particulars of each version of Buddhism since they all have different cultural variations on what a Buddha is, what their role is and how the ones they call buddhas became that way.

      Now there is only one "The Buddha". By which people mean Siddhrtha Gautama. Also, the statues of "Buddha" are often not the buddha you are thinking of. Watch a lot of Chinese or Thai movies and it will become clear that they aren't talking about "The Buddha" when they refer to the statues or their buddhas.

      HTH.

    161. Re:look another US-American idiot! by vadim_t · · Score: 1

      I didn't say war wouldn't happen, I said it'd happen less.

      Religion was the tool they used to get people to do their bidding.

      And that's something I consider a problem. Religion is sometimes a good backup reason when no other good justification is available. Some things would be harder to justify if a good reason had to be provided, and the excuse wasn't available.

      Also, for the record, when I say "religion" I don't just mean the god of abrahamic religions, but the general set of irrational belifs that can't be questioned. Personality cults are included as well.

    162. Re:look another US-American idiot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah mao, stalin, hitler, (to name a few) all got along real nice without religion. heck they even tried to eradicate religion. they all promoted critical thinking and acceptance, right? you're just such stupid dumb idiot. all mankinds' evils will disappear if religion would just go away? and you think people with religion have their head in the clouds... you're high when you wrote that, right? freaking retarded you are.

  4. Re: Class Action Lawsuit... by Phrogman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Its a good idea when planning a class action lawsuit to ensure that your target actually has any money to be paid out. I think /. likely fails in this regard :P
    I am sure its generating some money, but I doubt its huge...

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  5. I wanna sue too... by ZeRu · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can I sue my company for making me addicted to my job? Because of them, I get up at the same exact time and go to the same place everyday monday to friday where I meet same people and spend next 8 hours doing boring and repetitive stuff. If that's not addiction, then I don't know what it is.

    --
    If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
    1. Re:I wanna sue too... by hldn · · Score: 1

      probably not, but you could sue the world for making you addicted to money.

      --
      http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    2. Re:I wanna sue too... by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      If that's not addiction, then I don't know what it is.

      You bring up a point there (jokingly, but the point is important I think): what is addiction?

      I'm going to suggest the following standard for judging if something is actual addiction or not, it should probably be a legally recognized standard. Let's call it the "Bob Saget in Half Baked standard," because I'm taking this from Bob Saget's character in Half Baked.

      If the person in question has performed fellatio for his or her "addiction," then it is an addiction. If he or she has not performed fellatio, then it's not an addiction and he or she should be booed. ...

      So I have to ask, what is your job exactly, ZeRu?

    3. Re:I wanna sue too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like my addiction to water. It's inconvenient and I can't kick the habit. Sometimes I'm off acquiring it when I could be doing something more fulfilling... so it's definitely impacted my quality of life. I'm concerned really, knowing that if I have too much of it it might kill me and that withdrawal can also prove lethal. :(

  6. Eaugh. by Securityemo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So this man played a game for an average of just under 12 hours a day, every day, for five years?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
    1. Re:Eaugh. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NCsoft should settle and give him vouchers for play time - its about all he deserves, and is better for NCSoft than paying out loads in lawyer fees.

    2. Re:Eaugh. by XAD1975 · · Score: 1

      It would seem so... Now, what else could have have done during that time? Get out, find friends, make connections, get a job, get a wife and have kids that would, in turn, spend 12 hours a day playing? Damn... again the proof that intelligence is not a requirement to survive nowadays.

    3. Re:Eaugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn... again the proof that intelligence is not a requirement to survive nowadays.

      Never was. A favoring factor, yes, but not a requirement.

    4. Re:Eaugh. by Quirkz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the previous discussion had some points about this guy being banned from the game for selling in-game items for real-world money, which is possibly what caused to sue as a sort of revenge. I suspect they don't really want to encourage banned players to keep playing their game. Nor players who are in an adversarial relationship with them.

    5. Re:Eaugh. by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Essentially. The actual amount is ~11 hours, there being 43830 hours in 5 years. However, I think it's more instructive to look at the weekly hours.

      There are 168 hours in a week, and at this guys claimed rate of play, he would need on average ~76 hours a week in order to rake up that many hours of play. Assuming this guy actually sleeps(say 7 hours a night), there are only 119 hours in the week from which to make those play hours, giving him only 43 free hours for the rest of the week.

      So, assuming that weekends are serious Lineage binge time, he's got about 8.6 (43/5) hours every weekday to live what's left of the rest of his life. I think we all know that a full time job is impossible with those hours, but I suppose some kind of part time job might be plausible, but transit and hours won't be able to add up to much. Keeping in mind that eating/hygiene/miscellaneous have all been left aside for now.

      Even assuming no job at all, to make up those 76 play hours you'd need something like either 5 days of 16 hour Lineage shifts, or else 6 days of 13 hour shifts if you wanted at least one free day to....use the john I suppose. You could also cut in on sleep by running, say, two 36 hour shifts, which might buy you some additional spare time. Perhaps multitasking could be factored in. But in any case, raking up 20,000 hours in 5 years is going to be a sustained endurance feat I'm not sure even most junkies would be able to maintain for that length of time.

      In summary: Craig Smallwood lives in his parents basement, and he's not coming out.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  7. I keep forgetting by OrangeTide · · Score: 4, Insightful

    that we're no longer responsible for our own actions.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:I keep forgetting by Beefchief · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry, it's not your fault.

    2. Re:I keep forgetting by c0lo · · Score: 1

      that we're no longer responsible for our own actions.

      The "good": this is why the governments feel the need to step in and protect you.
      The 'bad": the govs are made of people equally no longer responsible for their actions!
      The "ugly": while your lack of responsibility is potentially punishable, theirs are not.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    3. Re:I keep forgetting by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I have a feeling that if NCSoft put "warning this game has been proven by Court Precident to be extremely addicting" more people would pick it up.

      Seriously though - while I believe this lawsuit is pretty dumb (this is right up there with suing a crack dealer because he/she didn't warn you about how addictive it is) some people take addictions differently. I've experimented with various recreational drugs/alcohol etc - many of which are potentially addictive and walked away in each case never to do it again, but I played World of Warcraft since launch up until recently 10-20 hours a week and didn't really realize how much I'd lost up until that time. People I've skipped out on, girlfriends I've ignored, vacations I never did but planned - stuff like that.

      What changed was a Chinese hacker raped my account, and while Blizzard fixed everything - I didn't play for like 2 weeks and had realized what happened over the last few years. The bad thing is - if my friends ever moved away or my girlfriend left me I'd probably relapse, but I hope not. Thank you Chinese hacker.

    4. Re:I keep forgetting by grumbel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And why exactly shouldn't NCsoft we responsible for their actions or lack their off too?

      Assume for a moment that MMORPGs can be addictive for some people and assume further that NCsoft has hard data on that. Then that means that they would knowingly let people run into addiction issues and do nothing about it, quite the opposite, they would happily continue to collect the monthly fee. Isn't that negligence or at least not far off? Especially considering that it would be rather simple to do something about it (present a warning after more then X hours a month, start chat with counsellor, lock account or something else).

      If you distribute something that destroys peoples life and you know about that (at 11h/day over 5 years it should be rather obvious), you should at least take some responsibility.

    5. Re:I keep forgetting by shermo · · Score: 1

      I realise that personal responsibility is out of fashion these days - but NCsoft is not responsible for this person playing too much lineage. The government is not responsible for him playing too much lineage. Guess who is?

      --
      Insanity: voting in the same two parties over and over again and expecting different results
    6. Re:I keep forgetting by grumbel · · Score: 1

      I realise that personal responsibility is out of fashion these days

      And that is a good thing, as it is is used far to often to just ignore problems instead of fixing them.

      but NCsoft is not responsible for this person playing too much lineage.

      NCsoft is directly responsible for that. If there wouldn't be NCsoft he technically simply couldn't play LineageII, it is as simple as that. NCsoft is a necessary link in the causal chain that caused him to play to much of this game, of course there are also other elements that caused him to play to much of the game (easily addicted personality, etc.), but none of that makes the part that NCsoft played in his addiction go away.

      Now of course if they are legally liable is a completly different matter, with cigarettes for example we get all those warnings about direct heath risks, but I don't think we get any warnings about potential addiction issues, so it might very well be that addiction is simply an accepted side effect that doesn't need to be warned about in a legal sense. But there is really no question that they share some responsibility for what their game is doing to the people playing it, as they are the ones keeping the servers up and running.

    7. Re:I keep forgetting by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't. To take a well-known addictive substance, what you're saying is that it's proper to blame liquor store owners for knowing that their product is addictive. I don't think a liquor store owner has EVER been sued by an alcoholic for enabling his addiction.

      You are a seriously deluded individual. You really need medical (psychological) help. You have real issues.

    8. Re:I keep forgetting by Rexdude · · Score: 1

      Millions of people play MMOs without letting them take over their lives. If they can balance their time playing with other activities, what's this guy's problem? How is NCSoft in any way liable for this guy wasting away his life on a game?

      --
      "..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
    9. Re:I keep forgetting by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Millions of people play MMOs without letting them take over their lives.

      Millions of people eat peanuts all the time without getting hurt, yet people with Peanut allergy might die from it. People simply are not all the same and while some people might be just fine with MMOs, other might not. And in this case the important part is that NCsoft very likely has the data to actually tell the difference between people that run into issues and people who don't and they decided to just ignore those with addiction issues. If that is the case, is that negligence? I don't know, thats but it certainly isn't exactly a good way to deal with addiction.

  8. stupid lawsuit, good ruling by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's a stupid lawsuit, but I favor any ruling that weakens the EULA. Those things are near-evil.

    --
    Qxe4
    1. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by johnhp · · Score: 1

      If EULAs were written in plain language, and required that you sign them at the time of purchase, they'd be fine. But all of the "by opening this software" EULAs are bullshit by definition.

    2. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd argue that they're full evil - assuming my understanding of contract law is accurate (and it may very well be wrong).

      Contract law requires that the terms of the contract be present before someone purchases the good/service. With software, you get hit with a nice big EULA long after the purchase. They want it both ways: They want to restrict what you can and can't do with their software and have contractual protection against breaches, but they don't want the burden of having to tell people that up front and they don't want to have the clauses that indicate what a consumer can do if the contract is breached. You can't even return opened software in most brick and mortar stores, so if you don't agree to their "contract" clauses, you're left with no remedy other than "go fuck yourself."

      Contracts are supposed to address remedies for breach, supposing, for example, the company decides unilaterally to change the agreement (they do this all the time), you should be bound by the terms that you agreed to, not the new terms. Most of the time, they won't even let you use the service or software until you agree to the new terms, basically holding your purchase hostage. Of course their "contracts" don't define any remedies there.

      Personally, I think this situation is all FUBAR. Right now, they take the parts that are convenient and reject the parts that aren't. I'd love for somebody to get hit with a huge lawsuit so some sanity comes back to this one-way gravy train - or to learn why I'm wrong. Either would be good, because it makes no sense from the way I'm seeing it.

    3. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by sco08y · · Score: 1

      It's a stupid lawsuit, but I favor any ruling that weakens the EULA. Those things are near-evil.

      I'm hesitant to gut EULAs.

      If you're trying to start a business involving software, you wind up taking on risk, like any business.

      Without legal protections, you can still operate, but you take on more risk. You can mitigate this through insurance, but it's expensive.

      If you're trying to raise capital, your investors are going to look at how much risk you've got, because more risk means lower expected returns. That means you're going to get less capital.

      It won't kill off the business, by any means. But the largely unseen effect will be smaller businesses that just never start, and more domination of the market by big corps.

    4. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      If by weakens, you mean forces everyone to make a stronger EULA, one that protects them against this kind of lawsuit, then yeah, this is really going to weaken EULAs

    5. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Write out 100 times: My enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend.

      See also: US foreign policy since ... well, pretty much forever.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by notknown86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If EULAs were written in plain language, and required that you sign them at the time of purchase, they'd be fine. But all of the "by opening this software" EULAs are bullshit by definition.

      They don't do that anymore because people starting reconsidering the purchase when they hit the "first born child" and "immortal soul" clauses...

    7. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your investors are going to look at how much risk you've got, because more risk means lower expected returns.

      This statement is worded badly. More risk means higher expected returns.

      If you're an investor and are putting money into a high risk project, you want more compensation (returns) for taking on the additional risk. If safer projects have higher returns for less risk, then any safe investment dominates any risky investment, and risky projects will never be funded. (Why take extra risk if there's more money in a sure thing?)

      I think what you mean to say is there's a higher chance that investor's funds will disappear if the project or business fails. That doesn't mean the expected return on a risky project is lower. If the expected return is lower, the project would never be funded in the first place, because investors will choose higher returning projects with less risk.

    8. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by SirJorgelOfBorgel · · Score: 4, Informative

      As co-owner of a small software house, I agree.

      We have aggressive EULA's as well, but as we're based in Europe we also have strong consumer laws to work with. The EULA's main purpose is to stop lawsuits dead in their tracks and just be reasonable about usage.

      Sure, if the software doesn't work as the user expects it to, we will either attempt to fix it first or issue a refund. Its the user's choice whether we try to fix it first or refund immediately (no questions asked), if the refund request is made within 30 days of purchase. We generally offer a refund long beyond those 30 days as well, we have free fully-functional 21-day trial versions, and you have to agree to the EULA before even purchasing. The EULA is clearly linked, not hidden, and a refund request can be done by a simple email. We even allow you to use a single copy on all your computers instead of purchasing a copy per computer. I know, people usually do this with all their software, but it is usually against the EULA.

      We find this entirely reasonable and gives the user more than enough chance to see if it works as they expect it to, and is actually more lenient to the end-users than is legally required. The right to refund (in our case) is only 7 days, and the manufacturer (us) has the right to attempt a fix 3 times before having to refund.

      But you still need the EULA as developers, because the liability is insane. For example, say you were walking around while holding your netbook in one hand and typing on it with the other, while the software is running (which is a pretty weird thing to do in any case), and you walk under a bus, we may actually be liable under law. I've never heard of an actual case like this, but legally, it's possible. So the EULA needs a clause which disallows you from usage when usage could result in serious injury to anyone (not just the user). That's just one of a great many examples. As over here it's not allowed to simply have a clause which waives liability for many cases, each case like this needs to be covered explicitly by the EULA.

      And even with a strong EULA, you simply can't cover all these cases. Luckily, the place we operate from is not (yet) a sueing society like the USA, and awarded damages are usually limited to provable loss (and not some arbitrary number some money hungry lawyer thought up, or emotional damage and whatnot). Add to that that due to our exact situation - contrary to what someone posted above - we actually are able to limit the court's location where you can sue us to our own country.

      Still, the possibility for insane lawsuits are still there, and simply cannot be fully covered by an EULA.

      Now ask the question, what is wrong here? Are we manufacturers evil for trying to protect ourselves from people seeking to make an easy buck at our expense? We could cover that, but then a single copy would not cost $15, it would cost $15000. I sincerely doubt the average end-user would like to pay that amount for software. Or are the laws insane for allowing end-users to act irresponsibly and then succesfully blaming others for their own mistakes? In my book that is behaviour you try to teach kids not to have, though it seems a great many missed that part of their education.

      If laws, end-users, and manufcaturers would simply be reasonable, EULA's would not be needed. Blame not the manufacturer for including a EULA, blame the law for needing one! We work hard for our money just like you do, and no, we don't think you're entitled to our life savings because you stubbed your toe.

    9. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by hedwards · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, if one doesn't have the ability to read it ahead of time, have it explained to oneself and have the ability to negotiate it, then it's probably not legally binding anyways. The fact that the courts have a habit of finding otherwise is extremely troubling. In my view any contract which requires an attorney to interpret had damn well be dealing with enough money to make it worthwhile for both parties. Buying a $50 piece of software and requiring the customer to spend $200 in attorneys fees to understand because you felt the urge to obfuscate and hide things in the contract is not what anybody of sound mind would consider acceptable behavior.

    10. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by hedwards · · Score: 1

      And that will change precisely when it starts hurting conservative politicians. For them it's been working out brilliantly. It gives them a guaranteed source of future threats to scare the crap out of the populace with. Go on a pointless war somewhere else to get people to rally around the flag and use this as subterfuge to take away more of the people's stuff and give it to the rich. I'm not really seeing a downside for the morons that do it.

    11. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      This is another one of those articles which prove judges are idiots and unqualified for their job. This idiot judge just granted the the company complete justification for a new trial. This idiot judge just interpreted and applied another state's laws whereby he has no such authority. Period. End of discussion.

      If the judge was not a complete idiot, which clearly he is, the case would have been thrown to the Texas court where the contract very clearly demands. They have no choice. It is then up to the plaintiff's lawyer to convince the Texas judge/court that the the state law is not applicable and therefore the case can move forward in a court of the plaintiff's choosing. That's what we call due process. Until this happens, due process has been denied to the company and is completely illegal.

      Why is it so hard for judges to actually do their fucking job? Are there any courts left which actually have judges who can spell their own name? Holy shit that judge is a fucking idiot.

    12. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      This statement is worded badly. More risk means higher expected returns.

      I'd say: more risk requires higher returns. More risk doesn't always mean higher returns: If you try to shoot a rabbit you have a choice between using a gun and hitting the bullet on the back with a hammer, manually. The manual way has a lot more risk, no chance of success to speak of. The gun is the preferred method. It has a lower risk and a higher expected return.
      In economics this means you'd spend on the company that uses guns, not on the manual idiots. To spend money on a more risky project you'd require higher expected returns.
      If you'd take 1000 theoretical projects with the same expected results and sort them according to risk (ceteris paribus) the high risk projects have, on average, lower actual results. In this light there is something to be said for "more risk means lower results".

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    13. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by sjames · · Score: 1

      All if that is perfectly reasonable. It would, of course, be best if the law were adjusted to be more reasonable in the first place, but that seems to be an impossible dream..

      The EULA hatred comes from companies going far beyond that. It's from the EULAs that disclaim everything including that the software will even try to run by companies that absolutely will not give a refund. Some go so far as to claim you may not disparage the software (in public or private). That is, when it doesn't run and they won't give you a refund, you are supposedly forbidden to warn others. Some EULAs forbid benchmarking the product (primarily for products whose benchmarks won't look good against the competition). Practically all of them claim (rather outrageously) that they have the right to change the agreement at any time for any reason and that it's your responsibility to find out about it and that you already accept (in advance) the changed versions as well. If not for the incredible overreach, there wouldn't be such a backllash against them.

      It was magnified even more when, in spite of the EULA being almost entirely one sided, Microsoft wouldn't even honor their own written offer of a refund to people who found the terms of the EULA unacceptable.

    14. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by Stiletto · · Score: 1

      Without legal protections, you can still operate, but you take on more risk.

      I don't think it's right that we allow companies to just erase their legal risk simply by writing magic words into an "agreement". Let's say I can just wear a shirt that says "If you read this, you've agreed to waive your right to sue me for anything, ever". Would that hold up in court? Probably not. But we allow companies to do this all the time with licenses and contracts. Hell, the whole point of forming a separate business entity is so shareholders can dodge legal responsibility for the decisions they (or the managers they elect) make.

      If a company is negligent, and harms someone, however indirectly, it SHOULD be held responsible and punished. Just like I personally would be held responsible if I harmed someone. Nobody should be allowed to write "LA LA LA I'm not responsible for anything" on a piece of paper and opt out of justice.

    15. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The fact that you say it is a conservative thing shows that you either A) have a short memory or B) are blinded by your partisan beliefs. As long as I can remember, the party in power has started wars, and the opposition party called them warmongers. During the Clinton era they said it was the president's attempt to "Wag the Dog." Either learn history or open your eyes.

      --
      Qxe4
    16. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes you are evil. You pay the lawyer for the crazy EULA. The lawyer profits and goes into politics. The politician makes laws requiring more lawyers. You pay the lawyer for a crazier EULA.

    17. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by dei5 · · Score: 1

      You've forgotten EULA clauses which exist solely to remove user rights. I think the best case I can think of for this is the "install on one computer" clauses. If I own more than one computer why should I only be able to install the software I purchased on one of them? Am I also limited to only playing my DVDs on a single player? EULAs can be used for good, but they are just as often used for evil. Also, why can't they be in terms which can be read and understood by the person who is actually agreeing to them?

    18. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by sco08y · · Score: 1

      You've forgotten EULA clauses which exist solely to remove user rights. I think the best case I can think of for this is the "install on one computer" clauses.

      Hold on, how is that "removing user rights"? After all, before you bought the software, you didn't have it. You couldn't install it anywhere.

      In principle, if I can offer a lower price to the majority of users who only want to install on one computer, everyone benefits. The minority who want to install on more can negotiate a fair price, or simply buy additional licenses.

      In practice, I don't agree with it. It punishes the users who actually abide by the EULA, while the vast majority of users just ignore it. I also find usage restrictions to be fairly confusing, just because there are so many different models and they are rarely well explained.

      But either way, it isn't taking away anyone's rights or freedom.

    19. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by SirJorgelOfBorgel · · Score: 1

      Again, the EULA is to legally protect. Though of course there are exceptions (usually bigcorp), the EULA is typically much more restrictive then developers actually care about.

      For the specific case you bring, take into consideration that in various countries you cannot legally make a distinction between a "normal" user and a "corporate" user.

      If the EULA would for example state you may install a single copy on all the devices you own, this (for some) opens up the possibility of bigcorp getting a single license and installing it for 100.000 seats, perfectly legal. Bigcorp is a legal entity of itself, and owns all those seats...

      I know, bigcorp often abuses EULAs, and most people only come into contact with bigcorp software. But when getting software from smaller shops, take the EULA with a great deal of salt, and ask yourself: do they care about this at all, or is it just to cover their ass legally? More often than not, you'll find the latter is the case. I know lots of small software house owners, and they'll tell you the same. In the end, there's much more smallcorp software around than bigcorp :)

      Not to mention that EULAs are usually drafted by your lawyers, not by the producing branch of the company, and they'll try to cover anything and everything (which is of course their job). See all the contract negotiating that goes on with any deal - it's usually 90% bitchfight between company A's lawyers and company B's lawyers, both trying to put all liability and costs in the other company's shoes - and 10% between business people trying to make an actual working deal.

    20. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by sco08y · · Score: 1

      In my view any contract which requires an attorney to interpret had damn well be dealing with enough money to make it worthwhile for both parties. Buying a $50 piece of software and requiring the customer to spend $200 in attorneys fees...

      ... and spend two or three thousand dollars on a computer, invest hours in studying the documentation, training courses, etc. for the typical productivity software. And, as is often the case with most business-oriented productivity software, you're paying someone a full salary to use it. A good administrator shouldn't need an attorney's help (though your business probably has one on retainer for such questions) to go over the license requirements and figure out best practices for staying in compliance.

      The other extreme, more where you're coming from, is that if I just want to play Half-Life, it's pretty ridiculous to expect me to hire an attorney. And I agree completely.

      Generally, what ought to happen over time is that standard arrangements establish themselves and are codified into law. For most physical purchases, the uniform commercial code obviates the need for any written contract beyond a refund policy, though there are still all the safety warnings that you're supposed to read.

      Eventually, we should get legislation that cuts back on this, but right now there isn't a solid business model for making money with software. EULAs are a stopgap, and if you don't like them, use FLOSS.

    21. Re:stupid lawsuit, good ruling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little late, same AC.

      Your example has one flaw, and that is that the maximum return from either the hammer or the gun is exactly the same - a dead rabbit. In this situation, as you say, nobody would choose the hammer method because the expected return is lower, merely because the chance of success is lower. This does not counter my points because in your example there's no benefit at all in choosing the hammer.

      High risk projects which are approved have higher maximum returns than low risk projects. They have additional benefits not yielded by low risk approaches. They must to justify the risk, else nobody will invest in them.

      A better example would be, say, the use of thermal imaging, intrusion technology, and GPS devices to attempt to pinpoint rabbits as quickly as possible. Much riskier due to higher capital expense, depreciation, maintenance, and the fact that it may not even work, but potentially more profitable as more rabbits can be found and killed more quickly. You might choose to back a company that uses THAT technology because you believe they'll kill more rabbits. Here, there is at least the possibility of higher returns from the riskier approach.

  9. EULA's are completely invalid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, the EULA has something in it that contract law prohibits it from including. That shouldn't matter, because EULA's have no legal weight anyway. The customers don't sign the EULA, they just click an "agree" button. If they were really agreeing to it, they would have to print it out and mail it in to the company producing the software. Clicking a button can't have the same legal weight as signing a contract.

    Besides, Windows installers are all easily hackable. Anyone can change the EULA while installing the software, so that it says "This software is in the public domain". That seems like a much better EULA to agree to - I would be quite happy if the installer was willing to renegotiate to those license terms.

    1. Re:EULA's are completely invalid by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      Manifestation of assent doesn't literally have to be a paper signature.

      Your installer hack would violate meeting-of-the-minds against the publisher; whereas EULAs in their normal state may offend that principle against the consumer.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    2. Re:EULA's are completely invalid by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1

      That shouldn't matter, because EULA's have no legal weight anyway

      Someone better tell the judges, then, because the case law so far rather decisively disagrees with you.

  10. It must be nice! by uxbn_kuribo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So basically, he's suing for 3 million dollars over 5 years because he's addicted to a video game? If he won, that would make him the first person to make $600,000 a year playing video games. At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that averages out to $288.46 cents an hour for playing Lineage 2. Most of us will never make that sort of money doing anything, let alone for playing an MMO.

    --
    No portion of this post may be rebroadcast without the express, written consent of Major League Baseball.
    1. Re:It must be nice! by Muros · · Score: 1

      Says in the 1st line of the story that he played over 20k hours, so you want to cut that hourly rate in half. I'd still play for that price though.

    2. Re:It must be nice! by AltairDusk · · Score: 1

      If this guy wins I will consider our legal system to have failed completely. Is it too much to ask for people to have even a shred of responsibility for their own actions nowadays?

    3. Re:It must be nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, if he wins, he will probably turn around and spend all the money paying 3rd party "companies" for a new character and in-game currency. All of which had to be done by paying NCSoft for time in-game.

      Moral of the story, the house always wins.

    4. Re:It must be nice! by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

      So basically, he's suing for 3 million dollars over 5 years because he's addicted to a video game?

      If he won, that would make him the first person to make $600,000 a year playing video games.

      At 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, that averages out to $288.46 cents an hour for playing Lineage 2.

      Be fair, I'm sure he put in way over the mandatory work week. For ease of math, we'll assume that due to his addiction he worked closer to 120 hours/week. At that rate, he would only have been making a paltry $96.15/hr, which without a healthcare plan probably just barely covers his addiction treatment. And you have to consider what rank he must have earned in game for all that work, too. He's probably the equivalent of a President or CEO in his game; $600,000 a year isn't very much when you compare to how much CEO's make in the real world.

      Clearly this is unjust, and he needs to be compensated.

      Award the judgement to be paid to him in in-game money.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    5. Re:It must be nice! by MaWeiTao · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that his lawyer(s) are going to pocket the majority of that money. If they win.

    6. Re:It must be nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he said he put in more than 20k hours over 5 years... so his time was "only" worth $150/hr.

  11. His parents better watch out by Muros · · Score: 1

    ...declined to dismiss Smallwood's claims for negligence, defamation, and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

  12. If this guy wins hands down... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 1

    Just imagine bigger targets like World of Warcraft.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
  13. Another guy who wants to pin it all on "them" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > So what's the good bit? It better be fucking massive.

    You get all of those from atheism, too (witness the nut du jour who threatened the Discovery Channel).

    Now that we've established that they're not a religious problem, where do you get off on blaming everybody who believes differently from you for all the problems in the world?

    Because if it's fair to tar huge groups of people for the actions of nuts, well, look in the mirror buddy, you just condemned yourself.

  14. Obvious by MadKeithV · · Score: 2, Funny

    Of *course* the lawsuit made it past the EULA - who reads those, ever?
    The judge probably just thought "blah blah blah, click OK".

  15. Re:Good Books on Buddhism by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Hi!

    I finally get a chance to use one of my home grown pages in a discussion! Here's the list of my Buddhism shelf. I'd consider most of them "good".

    http://taophoenix.colorhost.net/Buddhism/BuddhismArticle2c.html

    Here's the still terribly fragmentary index page of my envisioned site. Apologies for the unbearably rough nature of the page. I had an audience of 0 until now, so I got lazy. : (

    http://taophoenix.colorhost.net/ReVisionWide.html

    The concept of the site is to version the articles like software programs. So the fragments are currently much like pre-alpha place holders, but you can see where things will go. You're free to email me for any discussion.

    P.S. Hey Slashdot, holler if the site goes down, I am doing a small opt-in free host study, and durability is one of the metrics. Colorhost is hoping to be a Paid host, so they need to be able to take a hit.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  16. doing the math? by wilborne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok. He claims to have spent 20000 hours over the course of 5 years. 20000 hours / 24 = 833.33 days played 833.33 days/ 365 = 2.28 Years So in the past 5 years, he has spent nearly 50% of his time playing this game. Is it a sign of addiction or just plan sad

  17. Re: Class Action Lawsuit... by gorzek · · Score: 1

    That's why you sue the parent company instead, which will most likely rather settle than have a drawn-out court battle.

  18. Okay, seriously by drej · · Score: 1

    If you are that prone to addiction and unable to take control of your own life, then you shouldn't have any rights, let alone the right to sue someone else for it. If you don't lead your own life you need to be locked up in some institution where your life is lived for you. Animals eat any chance they get; they can't help it and they have no control over it. But I don't see us giving them any kind of legal power. Why should it be different for someone who can't stop playing a videogame, something that doesn't even cause physical addiction? Yeah, proceed with the "you're an asshole" comments. I don't care.

  19. You know what this means... by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    In the future, to avoid liability, games will be required to suck.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  20. assumptions by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    but I'm not going to assume those things because they are preposterous.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  21. Also... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    If one guy is in the store and is otherwise occupied.
    Some of the stores really were "7 [AM] - 11 [PM]"

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  22. Two things... by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    1. He must really be an expert at that; Malcolm Gladwell must be doubly pleased.

    2. Indeed, contract clauses involving sometihng illegal are unenforceable.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  23. Been done already by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Didn't some fat chicks already sue McDonalds? I don't think I ever did find out what became of that...

  24. Re: Class Action Lawsuit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't need a huge amount, just enough.