> To all the Xians who think this whole issue is just homolefty whining,
Xians, I like that.:) However, I take offense to the insinuation that only homolefty whiners.. uh... whine about this. I'm a right-winger (though atheist, I got at least one thing going for me) who thinks that the whole argument is crap. But not how you think...
I think it should be removed because it is not appropriate for a ruling group (don't care if it's a democracy, they still "rule," in a sense) to talk about how they don't support anything but the people, and then turn around and support a religion. I know it doesn't say "Jesus," or "Allah," but it supports Judeo-Christi-Muslimism. Or, I guess, Abrahamic religions.
To bring this together a bit better, We are being taught (hopefully) to be a little more respectful of peoples' beliefs. That does not show any respect to those who consider the idea of God offensive. By taking two words out, you then give everyone the ability to respect the country without mangling the words to a pledge, which can be considered an insult to the country in general, and without specifically endorsing something offensive, unless you are offended at living in a country that does not inherently support your religion. Then I suggest you reread the constitution.
> you could not presume that there even exists a "spiritual" world
Ummm, no. First, his point was that if you beleive there's no Constitutional problem with "God," there is none with Satan, as legally, they are equal.
Second, "spirituality" is not mutually exclusive to Atheism. I can believe in ghosts, spirits... hell, I could even believe there is a Heaven, as long as I believe there is no one entity in heaven or earth that supercedes another. Granted, it's a shaky stance, but it is just as valid an opinion as "there's this all-powerful all-knowing being in the sky that absolutely refuses help us (because of free will, not because I'm being an ass), but if we deny him he'll punish us for eternity." Sounds fair. For you to define what another person must believe to be considered a part of that group (of which you are obviously not well-informed) does a disservice to the person, his "group," and yourself for leaning on ignorance.
> the fact that the universe did not create itself and the universe itself testifies to this truth
Oh, enlightened one, how did you come up with that groundless line of thinking. The universe doesn't attest to anything, it's a freaking inanimate object (if you can call the universe an object at all). I don't believe any of this crap you pass off as "fact," because you have no basis. I get angry because you try to force me to not think, and I get angry because you refuse to do so.
> Questions such as "where did we come from?", "what is the purpose of life?", "what is the basis for morality?" would either have to go unanswered, or be presented from all viewpoints.
Whew, now that "Under god" is in there, I don't have to ask these questions. What are you, fucking stupid, or just intentionally ignorant. I believe the second, as you don't generally seem stupid to me. You are saying there is no such thing as "skirting the issue?" You seriously think that because I don't praise God's name every minute that I am actively promoting atheism? Silence is not denial; just don't mention it, and you affirm neither. Mention either, and there's a problem.
> moral relativism would have to be banned from the schools
I didn't realize that there was never a morally-relativist christian. Or do you mean that they aren't really christians if they don't believe the same thing you do? That's an even bigger problem.
> You obviously have room, being that full of shit
Well, actually they don't have any more room. Their brain is so full of shit (as with the rest of them) that there is no room for new thoughts or the activity of thinking..
> So are children now to be exempt from [...] evolution classes if they object?
AFAIK, there aren't any classes strictly in "evolutionism." Add into that, evolution is a well-established theory with lots of scientific basis. Your point is invalid as well, because that is a class which SAYS it's a theory. Children are taught ABOUT it, not told that it is fact. There is nothing to prohibit schools from teaching ABOUT christianity, either.
> What about the American Indian culture stuff where they force the students to act pagan rituals out?
I was never (nor have I heard of anyone) forced, let alone asked, to act any rituals, "pagan" or not, in school or anywhere. I was barely taught about A.I. culture at all, and certainly not their rituals. Sounds like you're building a straw man.
> Or the various things in Sex Ed including teaching that alternate lifestyles are good even if it is against one's beliefs
I was never taught about "alternate lifestyles," either. Sex Ed was straightforward "man & woman" type stuff, but was mostly about diseases. I think that promotes all sex in general as bad, not any as good. That in itself, I would argue, is a religious viewpoint. To me, sex is morally equivalent to taking a crap -- it is not good or bad, it's just something mammals do.
> we should not subject children to teacher pushed porn indoctrination masquerading as lessons
Porn, wow that's pretty ignorant of reality. I sure as hell wish my school would have handed out or even shown anything resembling porn. Unfortunately, my school taught it like biology, with cross-section drawings & badly-obscured pictures. And I thought "sex ed" would teach something about sex. Nope, it was an anatomy class.
> If we give a "heckler's veto" to atheists, christians should have equal rights.
This is the first time I can recall anyone ever claiming that atheists have more rights. I'm not sure what you mean by "heckler's veto," as it's a pretty ambiguous term, but why should a christian's right to say "under god" overrule an atheist's right to recite the proper Pledge of Allegiance (and proudly display their patriotism) without declaring an aknowledgement of the existence of any god (christian or not)?
Sure, they can just not say that part, but then they are not reciting the actual Pledge of Allegiance, they are saying their version of it.
Imagine if I were a Christian (it's hard, but imagine) and I thought the Lord's Prayer was cool & all, but I decided I didn't like a line or two of it, so I changed it. Would it still be the Lord's Prayer, even though I'm the only one who says it (modified)? No it is not, so why should I expect those with slighty different opinions to recite it? I shouldn't, since my version does not reflect their beleifs, as saying our country is "under God" does not reflect mine.
> including allowing prayer in school and banning gay marriage
You say OTHERS are unclear on history. I think you are unclear on reality, as there's no way you can back up that statement with fact, you fucking religion troll. Christians are such whiners when not everyone is forced to follow them. And when they are (constantly) proved to be clueless morons.
> the pendulum swung too far against religion in the last 20 years
Keep swinging, P. Keep swinging...
Wait, how do you know it swung too far, or that this pendulum even exists (I mean pendulum theory, I know it's not "real.") Maybe it's a landslide that will happily continue until the belief is gone that mystical men in the sky will spank you for eternity unless you scream they are the most powerful being... Evar.
Maybe you're stating your belief that it's swinging back and you are calling it fact, because I surely don't see it coming back. I'm not 100% against religion, mind you. There's a great idea by a guy named Nicolo that I'm not going to get into, but you know it.
> If peer pressure pushes students in the RIGHT direction, it's okay in my book.
Since the CORRECT direction is neither right nor left, you're a fucking idiot. There is no right or wrong direction, only free thought and action, or thought & action that isn't free. Being forced to do anything against your will (within reason, of course) is the wrong direction. Oh, and "within reason" does not include anything religious or referencing religion, as this clearly is.
"Get off your knees and stop praying to yourself" - Broken Fetus, Cocaine Holocaust
Fucking/. Why doesn't it just pick out > & < that aren't HTML and translate it to > <. It's goddamn simple. > why is it that school kids have to say the pledge and prisoners do not?
People under 18 have not been told what to think yet, so they have no rights or choices. Prisoners are over 18 and already have wrong ideas (unless they're <18 & tried as an adult.. that's different somehow.. don't ask me), so they have the right to exercise the wrong ideas. Plus, they're in prison. Drug addicts and murderers have to be unpatriotic to be there (why else would they break laws to begin with?) and are, of course, terrorists who would spit in the face of America just "because." They are all Evil and wouldn't say it anyway, of course. Not to mention, they are still Americans and have rights, unlike the children. The children have to be protected from ignorant un-patriotism and taught to be correctly-christian patriots and not one of those murderous muslims.
D: <For the humor-impaired (and those with a sense of humor who didn't find this funny) it's a joke... kind of.>
> why is it that school kids have to say the pledge and prisoners do not?
People under 18 have not been told what to think yet, so they have no rights or choices. Prisoners are over 18 and already have wrong ideas (unless they're <For the humor-impaired (and those with a sense of humor who didn't find this funny) it's a joke... kind of.>
> Actually I do spend time around kids, and I find them often to be kind, giving and charitable-- I learn a lot from them. In fact, I have been greatly humbled by my children.
There's a whole lot of problems in there. The most important thing you say is "my children." Of course YOUR children a humble, generous, can-do-no-wrong kids... because if they are anything else, they know they'll get hit, yelled at, or you'll waste their time trying a guilt trip (which, I might point oun, ioes not usually work).
Try watching your kids when they "know" you aren't around, I guarantee they act differently. Children are NOT giving or charitable, except to close friends and when they can see it suits their interests. There is no way I will believe your children are any different just because you say (and maybe even think) they are.
I have never been humbled by a child, only usually annoyed by their shallowness. Children are extremely egotistical (they're supposed to be) and are not kind. I guess you don't remember being that young, or you were popular somehow, but life experience is much wore valuable than some guy who says "this is how I see it, so that's how it is."
> When you buy something on a credit card [...] you have to sign your name to the credit slip.
The great thing about this is that it's a hypothetical situation. I never said any of it was legal, I simply argued that without signing any contract, it's not a breach of contract. Of course it would be breach of contract if you signed the receipt/contract/slip.
> If she only used the card where no signature is required, like pay-at-the-pump stations, she'd still be committing fraud
Yes, fraud, not breach of contract. I still stand behind my insults, albeit slightly further behind, being later in the day and I'm more awake.
> Have you ever actually read the thing you sign when you purchase something on a credit card?
Have you ever passed a reading comprehension exam? The whole fucking point is SHE DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THE CARD -- SHE DID NOT SIGN TO HAVE A CREDIT CARD -- SHE DID NOT SIGN ANY CONTRACT. Make sure you know what you're talking about before playing "I'm so fucking smart."
> The original comment was that she would have no contractual obligation for the debt
And that is correct. The key word is contractual. They never signed a contract, therefore there is no contractual obligation, although there sure as hell is a legal obligation. I should have been clearer in my reply.
I'll go one step further, to say that File Extensions should be removed altogether. It's a mostly worthless leftover from DOS "8.3 filename" days. With the exception of some completely text files and.DAT-types, most have identifying bytes to figure out what kind of file it is.
> Find out where they're currently pushing cards in a public place like the mall.
That would be an excellent idea, and the wost effective. Shit, I think I'll go do that even though they haven't done anything to me; sounds like a good time.
Slashdot Mirror
> To all the Xians who think this whole issue is just homolefty whining,
:) However, I take offense to the insinuation that only homolefty whiners.. uh... whine about this. I'm a right-winger (though atheist, I got at least one thing going for me) who thinks that the whole argument is crap. But not how you think...
Xians, I like that.
I think it should be removed because it is not appropriate for a ruling group (don't care if it's a democracy, they still "rule," in a sense) to talk about how they don't support anything but the people, and then turn around and support a religion. I know it doesn't say "Jesus," or "Allah," but it supports Judeo-Christi-Muslimism. Or, I guess, Abrahamic religions.
To bring this together a bit better, We are being taught (hopefully) to be a little more respectful of peoples' beliefs. That does not show any respect to those who consider the idea of God offensive. By taking two words out, you then give everyone the ability to respect the country without mangling the words to a pledge, which can be considered an insult to the country in general, and without specifically endorsing something offensive, unless you are offended at living in a country that does not inherently support your religion. Then I suggest you reread the constitution.
> you could not presume that there even exists a "spiritual" world
Ummm, no. First, his point was that if you beleive there's no Constitutional problem with "God," there is none with Satan, as legally, they are equal.
Second, "spirituality" is not mutually exclusive to Atheism. I can believe in ghosts, spirits... hell, I could even believe there is a Heaven, as long as I believe there is no one entity in heaven or earth that supercedes another. Granted, it's a shaky stance, but it is just as valid an opinion as "there's this all-powerful all-knowing being in the sky that absolutely refuses help us (because of free will, not because I'm being an ass), but if we deny him he'll punish us for eternity." Sounds fair.
For you to define what another person must believe to be considered a part of that group (of which you are obviously not well-informed) does a disservice to the person, his "group," and yourself for leaning on ignorance.
> the fact that the universe did not create itself and the universe itself testifies to this truth
Oh, enlightened one, how did you come up with that groundless line of thinking. The universe doesn't attest to anything, it's a freaking inanimate object (if you can call the universe an object at all). I don't believe any of this crap you pass off as "fact," because you have no basis. I get angry because you try to force me to not think, and I get angry because you refuse to do so.
> Why [...] are school children pledging allegience to the flag
It's a throwback to British Colonial days, when Britain would go find a place that had no flag, then plant their own.
Ugga: "Hey, this is not your land, it is ours!"
Brit: "Do you have a flag?"
Ugga: "What's a flag?"
Brit: "I declare this land for the British Empire."
It's symbolic.
> Questions such as "where did we come from?", "what is the purpose of life?", "what is the basis for morality?" would either have to go unanswered, or be presented from all viewpoints.
Whew, now that "Under god" is in there, I don't have to ask these questions. What are you, fucking stupid, or just intentionally ignorant. I believe the second, as you don't generally seem stupid to me. You are saying there is no such thing as "skirting the issue?" You seriously think that because I don't praise God's name every minute that I am actively promoting atheism? Silence is not denial; just don't mention it, and you affirm neither. Mention either, and there's a problem.
> moral relativism would have to be banned from the schools
I didn't realize that there was never a morally-relativist christian. Or do you mean that they aren't really christians if they don't believe the same thing you do? That's an even bigger problem.
> You obviously have room, being that full of shit
Well, actually they don't have any more room. Their brain is so full of shit (as with the rest of them) that there is no room for new thoughts or the activity of thinking..
> So are children now to be exempt from [...] evolution classes if they object?
AFAIK, there aren't any classes strictly in "evolutionism." Add into that, evolution is a well-established theory with lots of scientific basis. Your point is invalid as well, because that is a class which SAYS it's a theory. Children are taught ABOUT it, not told that it is fact. There is nothing to prohibit schools from teaching ABOUT christianity, either.
> What about the American Indian culture stuff where they force the students to act pagan rituals out?
I was never (nor have I heard of anyone) forced, let alone asked, to act any rituals, "pagan" or not, in school or anywhere. I was barely taught about A.I. culture at all, and certainly not their rituals. Sounds like you're building a straw man.
> Or the various things in Sex Ed including teaching that alternate lifestyles are good even if it is against one's beliefs
I was never taught about "alternate lifestyles," either. Sex Ed was straightforward "man & woman" type stuff, but was mostly about diseases. I think that promotes all sex in general as bad, not any as good. That in itself, I would argue, is a religious viewpoint. To me, sex is morally equivalent to taking a crap -- it is not good or bad, it's just something mammals do.
> we should not subject children to teacher pushed porn indoctrination masquerading as lessons
Porn, wow that's pretty ignorant of reality. I sure as hell wish my school would have handed out or even shown anything resembling porn. Unfortunately, my school taught it like biology, with cross-section drawings & badly-obscured pictures. And I thought "sex ed" would teach something about sex. Nope, it was an anatomy class.
> If we give a "heckler's veto" to atheists, christians should have equal rights.
This is the first time I can recall anyone ever claiming that atheists have more rights. I'm not sure what you mean by "heckler's veto," as it's a pretty ambiguous term, but why should a christian's right to say "under god" overrule an atheist's right to recite the proper Pledge of Allegiance (and proudly display their patriotism) without declaring an aknowledgement of the existence of any god (christian or not)?
Sure, they can just not say that part, but then they are not reciting the actual Pledge of Allegiance, they are saying their version of it.
Imagine if I were a Christian (it's hard, but imagine) and I thought the Lord's Prayer was cool & all, but I decided I didn't like a line or two of it, so I changed it. Would it still be the Lord's Prayer, even though I'm the only one who says it (modified)? No it is not, so why should I expect those with slighty different opinions to recite it? I shouldn't, since my version does not reflect their beleifs, as saying our country is "under God" does not reflect mine.
> including allowing prayer in school and banning gay marriage
You say OTHERS are unclear on history. I think you are unclear on reality, as there's no way you can back up that statement with fact, you fucking religion troll. Christians are such whiners when not everyone is forced to follow them. And when they are (constantly) proved to be clueless morons.
Trolling for dollars! You can too!
> the pendulum swung too far against religion in the last 20 years
Keep swinging, P. Keep swinging...
Wait, how do you know it swung too far, or that this pendulum even exists (I mean pendulum theory, I know it's not "real.") Maybe it's a landslide that will happily continue until the belief is gone that mystical men in the sky will spank you for eternity unless you scream they are the most powerful being... Evar.
Maybe you're stating your belief that it's swinging back and you are calling it fact, because I surely don't see it coming back. I'm not 100% against religion, mind you. There's a great idea by a guy named Nicolo that I'm not going to get into, but you know it.
> If peer pressure pushes students in the RIGHT direction, it's okay in my book.
Since the CORRECT direction is neither right nor left, you're a fucking idiot. There is no right or wrong direction, only free thought and action, or thought & action that isn't free. Being forced to do anything against your will (within reason, of course) is the wrong direction. Oh, and "within reason" does not include anything religious or referencing religion, as this clearly is.
"Get off your knees and stop praying to yourself" - Broken Fetus, Cocaine Holocaust
Fucking /. Why doesn't it just pick out > & < that aren't HTML and translate it to > <. It's goddamn simple.
> why is it that school kids have to say the pledge and prisoners do not?
People under 18 have not been told what to think yet, so they have no rights or choices. Prisoners are over 18 and already have wrong ideas (unless they're <18 & tried as an adult.. that's different somehow.. don't ask me), so they have the right to exercise the wrong ideas.
Plus, they're in prison. Drug addicts and murderers have to be unpatriotic to be there (why else would they break laws to begin with?) and are, of course, terrorists who would spit in the face of America just "because." They are all Evil and wouldn't say it anyway, of course. Not to mention, they are still Americans and have rights, unlike the children. The children have to be protected from ignorant un-patriotism and taught to be correctly-christian patriots and not one of those murderous muslims.
D: <For the humor-impaired (and those with a sense of humor who didn't find this funny) it's a joke... kind of.>
> why is it that school kids have to say the pledge and prisoners do not?
People under 18 have not been told what to think yet, so they have no rights or choices. Prisoners are over 18 and already have wrong ideas (unless they're <For the humor-impaired (and those with a sense of humor who didn't find this funny) it's a joke... kind of.>
> Actually I do spend time around kids, and I find them often to be kind, giving and charitable-- I learn a lot from them. In fact, I have been greatly humbled by my children.
There's a whole lot of problems in there. The most important thing you say is "my children." Of course YOUR children a humble, generous, can-do-no-wrong kids... because if they are anything else, they know they'll get hit, yelled at, or you'll waste their time trying a guilt trip (which, I might point oun, ioes not usually work).
Try watching your kids when they "know" you aren't around, I guarantee they act differently. Children are NOT giving or charitable, except to close friends and when they can see it suits their interests. There is no way I will believe your children are any different just because you say (and maybe even think) they are.
I have never been humbled by a child, only usually annoyed by their shallowness. Children are extremely egotistical (they're supposed to be) and are not kind. I guess you don't remember being that young, or you were popular somehow, but life experience is much wore valuable than some guy who says "this is how I see it, so that's how it is."
> Just a ten-second "you have to sing the words, it's a sign of respect" speech.
How come no one shows ME any respect when my religion compels me to stand and hum "Der Fliedermouse" as loud as I can at 8:52AM?
> When you buy something on a credit card [...] you have to sign your name to the credit slip.
The great thing about this is that it's a hypothetical situation. I never said any of it was legal, I simply argued that without signing any contract, it's not a breach of contract. Of course it would be breach of contract if you signed the receipt/contract/slip.
> If she only used the card where no signature is required, like pay-at-the-pump stations, she'd still be committing fraud
Yes, fraud, not breach of contract. I still stand behind my insults, albeit slightly further behind, being later in the day and I'm more awake.
> Have you ever actually read the thing you sign when you purchase something on a credit card?
Have you ever passed a reading comprehension exam? The whole fucking point is SHE DIDN'T SIGN UP FOR THE CARD -- SHE DID NOT SIGN TO HAVE A CREDIT CARD -- SHE DID NOT SIGN ANY CONTRACT. Make sure you know what you're talking about before playing "I'm so fucking smart."
> remember we all pack here, so stay way.
Speak for yourself, fudgepacker. Although I will be staying away...
> Make that two
Three. And the difference is that I actually told them. Not that they care, but whatever.
> The original comment was that she would have no contractual obligation for the debt
And that is correct. The key word is contractual. They never signed a contract, therefore there is no contractual obligation, although there sure as hell is a legal obligation. I should have been clearer in my reply.
> Does anyone have the ICBM address of SunnComm?
Assuming you meant ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile), I think you are looking for GPS coordinates.
> "Hide file extensions" should simply be removed
.DAT-types, most have identifying bytes to figure out what kind of file it is.
I'll go one step further, to say that File Extensions should be removed altogether. It's a mostly worthless leftover from DOS "8.3 filename" days. With the exception of some completely text files and
(Yes, I did have an Amiga)
> if you're going to bitch about spelling
1. It's not spelling he was "bitching about," but using the incorrect word.
2. He wasn't even bitching, he made a correction, fukko.
> i think we need a "+5 correct" mod then
Just use "+Underrated"...
> Is there anyone else out there who is picturing the land shark as the pilot?
Hmmm. No, you're the only one at the moment. Is there any reason we should?
> This is patently false,
No it isn't. It's still illegal, but easy to lie about. ("It wasn't me, I never wrote that information. Someone was impersonating me.")
> Find out where they're currently pushing cards in a public place like the mall.
That would be an excellent idea, and the wost effective. Shit, I think I'll go do that even though they haven't done anything to me; sounds like a good time.