> This is analogous to going into a store, buying a shirt, and then stealing a second one
You really need to work on your analogies. There is no way any honest (and reasonably intelligent) person can make a useful analogy between physical items and data like that.
You misunderstand me: I was making more of a philisophical statement. I was not speaking of creating in the abstract sense (although it could be argued that all ideas are simply assembling thoughts that have already been had). Of course previously nonexistent ideas can be created. I meant physical things can't be created, only assembled from existing parts, however small they may be.
You cannot really create anything new. You can only rearrange things in novel ways. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but unless you are a god or have otherwise broken the "Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy," it is not truly "new."
> Assuming the universe is a finite size with a finite number of physical laws and a finite number of state, it's possible for humans to know everything there is to know about the universe
"Everything" is pretty extreme. To perfectly know the position, location, makeup, and state of every particle in the universe, your brain would have to be bigger than the universe itself.
> Can't have anything getting in the way of line-of-sight, etc.
The universe appears to be pretty good at having large amounts of nothing for very long distances. Granted, I'm no cosmologist, so I could be mistaken.
Just saying "he's not one of us" doesn't make him not one of "you." If he truly shares the basic beliefs of your religion, he is a member of your religion whether you like it or not. However, it would be fair to say that you think he believes in a bastardized version of your religion, but that is quite different. Also, it would be unfair for someone to assume two people of the same religion believe exactly the same thing and act on those beliefs in the same way. Therefore, those people you mentioned (assuming they believe what they say they believe) are Christians.
For you to claim some deep knowledge of Bush's beliefs and motives would insinuate that you have some supernatural insight into their deepest feelings and motives... well, that would appear to be a form of vanity: a sin. So since you are blatantly sinning, you are obviously NOT a christian yourself.
On the other hand, you could just accept that some christians may act in unchristian ways... quite possibly VERY, VERY unchristian ways, in the cases you mentioned.
> the vast vast vast majority of people are not drug abusers.
I would like to point out that "drug user" does not automatically mean "drug abuser." There is a significant difference. I work in a "drug-free workplace", so there isn't really a difference in terms of my employment, but the two terms are not honestly interchangeable.
I believe the "Grammar Prejudiced" are actually the Grammar Nazis to whom you refer (please don't correct me if that's an incorrect usage of "whom"; it's a stupid word). The G.Nazis were once teachers who realized the students didn't want to learn.
The extreme have become so extreme that their former extremism is seen to be perfectly normal. Or at least less @$$hole-ish.
> As far as I know, they can criminalize [...] anything representing [an illegal substance] and it's totally fine because [...] it's an illegal substance.
I'm not entirely sure about the basis of your argument. Does that mean that marijuana-leaf shirts can be made illegal? That could easily be considered an infringement of free speech (although it may be a hard argument to win if actually tested).
Or you could just get the hell over it and quit whining about things that ARE NOT IMPORTANT. We are talking about a presidential race -- the most important decision Americans can make as a country -- and you are getting all pissy because someone referred to MISTER Obama as "him?" Get a little f*&#ing perspective!!!
You answered your own question. Because the ones who can afford to purchase/open it are the ones who can afford to pay for the cure. Why pay a billion dollars for a cure when you can pay a few thousand for it? They are greedy and aren't going to spend their money to help others. How do you think they became rich to begin with?
> Education may expand your knowledge, but it cannot bestow wisdom. Like you, I am lacking in both, but I WILL admit it!
"And then I'll tell you that you're an uneducated idiot for not sharing my opinion anyway" is the unwritten part of that sentence that appeared to come from your post.
I'll start by admitting that this is probably a very stupid comparison, but I must make it anyway:
Starting from a similar situation, can a phone company be considered an accessory because someone used the pay phone they provided on the side of a building?
If they ever traced it back to the author, though, he would be royally screwed: "How many million counts of distributing illegal pornographic material?"
That probably far outweighs the remotely possible benefit of the questionably honorable nature of the act itself.
> If you mounted a phone on the outside of your house and put a "FREE USE" sign over it, would you be pissed when you got the long distance bill??
No, but I also don't expect to be jailed for threatening to kill the president because someone misused my generosity and decided to play a prank. If I didn't commit the crime, I shouldn't be held liable.
Is the Wal-Mart employee liable because they enabled the transaction that led to a murderous maniac possessing a kitchen knife?
Is the American public to blame because they elected a murderous maniac who... wait, bad example.
> People who claim that Christianity is very simple, without any complexity, are ignoring much of what Jesus said.
IMO, people that claim it is complicated are ignoring the majority of his teachings. Live in peace; treat others with respect, kindness, and tolerance; praise God with love in your heart; have faith that God will guide you, either directly or through Jesus' techings... Stuff like that. Seems pretty simple to me.
I have not, however, read in the Bible where God requires you to give 10% of your income to his leaders, where you can purchase your salvation... oh wait, since they gave that up, it's no longer God's command in the One True Religion, even though it was at one point, right? What about Limbo? If Catholicism taught "real Christianity" it would never change. The fact that two consecutive Popes can tell their followers contradictory statements and claim they are both God's commands is proof to counter your ridiculous claim.
> We can say that the FSM didn't REALLY make the world because we know people made him up as a clever parody of modern religious stupidity.
Actually no, we can't say that with 100% certainty. While I agree it's just a parody, if we accept that any religion can be true, prophets and all, then we cannot rule out FSM.
What if FSM were the "One True" religion, and It became irritated with the fake religions, so It inspired someone to present his truth, starting with parody in an attempt to draw people away from their false beliefs before revealing Its Truth to the world. Of course this is a silly idea, but so are many firmly-held religious beliefs.
Many self-proclaimed prophets of various religions have been put down as attention-seekers, deceivers, and more. Granted, I don't know of any who actually made fun of their own religion at the same time...
> Deer, fish, and elephants don't really care why they exist. They just do.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second (how's that for a poorly-chosen phrase?), how do you know that elephants don't care why they exist? Fish: sure. Deer: who cares. But elephants are pretty smart and old animals, who may even have artistic abilities. There are elephants that have been "taught" to paint. Whether that is artistry, mimicry, or just some moron sticking a paintbrush in an animal's nose is debateable, but if it is capable of artistic thought, why should it not have the ability to question the nature of its existence?
I'm no PETA member (I prefer cooking over hugging) but I never understood why humans are so quick to believe they are superior to everything else in every way. I can only imagine this arrogance comes from our religious histories that tell us we are superior to all but the (G/g)od(s).
Slashdot Mirror
> This is analogous to going into a store, buying a shirt, and then stealing a second one
You really need to work on your analogies. There is no way any honest (and reasonably intelligent) person can make a useful analogy between physical items and data like that.
You took a minor off-handed comment and thought I was trying to make some earth-shatteringly profound observation? Wow.
You misunderstand me: I was making more of a philisophical statement. I was not speaking of creating in the abstract sense (although it could be argued that all ideas are simply assembling thoughts that have already been had). Of course previously nonexistent ideas can be created. I meant physical things can't be created, only assembled from existing parts, however small they may be.
You cannot really create anything new. You can only rearrange things in novel ways. Perhaps it's splitting hairs, but unless you are a god or have otherwise broken the "Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy," it is not truly "new."
> Assuming the universe is a finite size with a finite number of physical laws and a finite number of state, it's possible for humans to know everything there is to know about the universe
"Everything" is pretty extreme. To perfectly know the position, location, makeup, and state of every particle in the universe, your brain would have to be bigger than the universe itself.
> Critiquing religion for not adding to our understanding of science means that you misunderstand what religion's role should be
He wrote two sentences. Neither was a "critique" of religion...
> Can't have anything getting in the way of line-of-sight, etc.
The universe appears to be pretty good at having large amounts of nothing for very long distances. Granted, I'm no cosmologist, so I could be mistaken.
> If they didn't, then they weren't truly in the final human form, hence "made in the image of God" was now suspect
The bible doesn't say "mirror image" or "perfect replica."
Just saying "he's not one of us" doesn't make him not one of "you." If he truly shares the basic beliefs of your religion, he is a member of your religion whether you like it or not. However, it would be fair to say that you think he believes in a bastardized version of your religion, but that is quite different. Also, it would be unfair for someone to assume two people of the same religion believe exactly the same thing and act on those beliefs in the same way. Therefore, those people you mentioned (assuming they believe what they say they believe) are Christians.
For you to claim some deep knowledge of Bush's beliefs and motives would insinuate that you have some supernatural insight into their deepest feelings and motives... well, that would appear to be a form of vanity: a sin. So since you are blatantly sinning, you are obviously NOT a christian yourself.
On the other hand, you could just accept that some christians may act in unchristian ways... quite possibly VERY, VERY unchristian ways, in the cases you mentioned.
> (end sarcasm)
Psh... I don't forsee the sarcasm about Vista ending any time soon.
> the vast vast vast majority of people are not drug abusers.
I would like to point out that "drug user" does not automatically mean "drug abuser." There is a significant difference. I work in a "drug-free workplace", so there isn't really a difference in terms of my employment, but the two terms are not honestly interchangeable.
I believe the "Grammar Prejudiced" are actually the Grammar Nazis to whom you refer (please don't correct me if that's an incorrect usage of "whom"; it's a stupid word). The G.Nazis were once teachers who realized the students didn't want to learn.
The extreme have become so extreme that their former extremism is seen to be perfectly normal. Or at least less @$$hole-ish.
> As far as I know, they can criminalize [...] anything representing [an illegal substance] and it's totally fine because [...] it's an illegal substance.
I'm not entirely sure about the basis of your argument. Does that mean that marijuana-leaf shirts can be made illegal? That could easily be considered an infringement of free speech (although it may be a hard argument to win if actually tested).
Or you could just get the hell over it and quit whining about things that ARE NOT IMPORTANT. We are talking about a presidential race -- the most important decision Americans can make as a country -- and you are getting all pissy because someone referred to MISTER Obama as "him?" Get a little f*&#ing perspective!!!
You answered your own question. Because the ones who can afford to purchase/open it are the ones who can afford to pay for the cure. Why pay a billion dollars for a cure when you can pay a few thousand for it? They are greedy and aren't going to spend their money to help others. How do you think they became rich to begin with?
Too true, unfortunately...
> Education may expand your knowledge, but it cannot bestow wisdom. Like you, I am lacking in both, but I WILL admit it!
"And then I'll tell you that you're an uneducated idiot for not sharing my opinion anyway" is the unwritten part of that sentence that appeared to come from your post.
Doh. Forgot about CC. Knew there had to be a good explanation, hence the first sentence of my post :)
I'll start by admitting that this is probably a very stupid comparison, but I must make it anyway:
Starting from a similar situation, can a phone company be considered an accessory because someone used the pay phone they provided on the side of a building?
If they ever traced it back to the author, though, he would be royally screwed: "How many million counts of distributing illegal pornographic material?"
That probably far outweighs the remotely possible benefit of the questionably honorable nature of the act itself.
> If you mounted a phone on the outside of your house and put a "FREE USE" sign over it, would you be pissed when you got the long distance bill??
No, but I also don't expect to be jailed for threatening to kill the president because someone misused my generosity and decided to play a prank. If I didn't commit the crime, I shouldn't be held liable.
Is the Wal-Mart employee liable because they enabled the transaction that led to a murderous maniac possessing a kitchen knife?
Is the American public to blame because they elected a murderous maniac who... wait, bad example.
> People who claim that Christianity is very simple, without any complexity, are ignoring much of what Jesus said.
IMO, people that claim it is complicated are ignoring the majority of his teachings. Live in peace; treat others with respect, kindness, and tolerance; praise God with love in your heart; have faith that God will guide you, either directly or through Jesus' techings... Stuff like that. Seems pretty simple to me.
I have not, however, read in the Bible where God requires you to give 10% of your income to his leaders, where you can purchase your salvation... oh wait, since they gave that up, it's no longer God's command in the One True Religion, even though it was at one point, right? What about Limbo? If Catholicism taught "real Christianity" it would never change. The fact that two consecutive Popes can tell their followers contradictory statements and claim they are both God's commands is proof to counter your ridiculous claim.
> We can say that the FSM didn't REALLY make the world because we know people made him up as a clever parody of modern religious stupidity.
Actually no, we can't say that with 100% certainty. While I agree it's just a parody, if we accept that any religion can be true, prophets and all, then we cannot rule out FSM.
What if FSM were the "One True" religion, and It became irritated with the fake religions, so It inspired someone to present his truth, starting with parody in an attempt to draw people away from their false beliefs before revealing Its Truth to the world. Of course this is a silly idea, but so are many firmly-held religious beliefs.
Many self-proclaimed prophets of various religions have been put down as attention-seekers, deceivers, and more. Granted, I don't know of any who actually made fun of their own religion at the same time...
> Deer, fish, and elephants don't really care why they exist. They just do.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second (how's that for a poorly-chosen phrase?), how do you know that elephants don't care why they exist? Fish: sure. Deer: who cares. But elephants are pretty smart and old animals, who may even have artistic abilities. There are elephants that have been "taught" to paint. Whether that is artistry, mimicry, or just some moron sticking a paintbrush in an animal's nose is debateable, but if it is capable of artistic thought, why should it not have the ability to question the nature of its existence?
I'm no PETA member (I prefer cooking over hugging) but I never understood why humans are so quick to believe they are superior to everything else in every way. I can only imagine this arrogance comes from our religious histories that tell us we are superior to all but the (G/g)od(s).
> (Forgive me for not proof reading this!)
;)
Sorry, but forgiveness is divine; and I don't believe in god.