Because most people are christians that believe everything another christian tells them about christianity, even if there's no biblical basis. Especially if it means they can insult someone else they are scared of or if they can prevent them from enjoying themselves in any way that doesn't involve singing hymns or reading the bible.
Re:The Best Laid Plans of Mice and Men ...
on
State of the Union
·
· Score: 1
> when I get too old to keep working, under your plan, I would have to resort to crime to make ends meet
Or, *GASP* try relying on family! God forbid someone has to compromise for another in his family.
> > The time I will start worrying is if "emergency powers" gets mentioned > Conservatives were saying the same thing after President Clinton was re-elected.
Yes, but they weren't seriously considering it as a possibility, backed by his prior actions.
> There is a shortage of licensed health care professionals at the moment
I don't buy that. It's not that there aren't enough, but that some of these assholes go into stuff like plastic surgery -- obviously that is because they are greedy and plastic surgeons make more than any responsible and sane person can spend.
If someone reading is a plastic surgeon and takes offense to that... fuck off, you greedy bastard.
> Eliminate insurance. I welcome any explanation as to why I'm an idiot for even considering this.
Even with tort reform, you are going to have perfectly reasonable mistakes happen that are worthy of a lawsuit. Well, if that doctor doesn't have a huge bank account (I know it's extremely rare to find a doctor that isn't overpaid, but imagine he just paid for his latest jet in cash), the first lawsuit will bankrupt him. Unless by tort reform you mean "doctors cannot be sued," which I doubt. That's why they have insurance.
OR, you can stop with the fucking idiotic statements like that.
Monitoring my web browsing WILL IN NO WAY PREVENT ANY TERRORIST ATTACK, EVER. <FUCKING SCREAMING!>E.V.E.R.</FUCKING SCREAMING!>.
I wish there was a way to emphasize just how loudly I want that said so that you understand. Millions of people will not die in a terrorist attack, you fucking fearmonger. There is simply no way for that to happen in the real world. Saying "thousands" is even disingenuous, as that will probably not happen any time in the near future either.
A hundred here, a hundred there, that's how terrorists work. 9/11 was either a freak occurrence or aided by the US government.
If that quote says something about me, it says something about you too... That you are interested in calculated insult rather than rational discussion. Speaking of which, you didn't offer any answers to any questions, but instead took offense at the way I wrote -- which was in response to your self-righteous tone, so justified.
That's a great idea! It reinforces negative ideals towards women, foreigners, other religions... Therefore, religion stands solidly in the category of hate speech, not free speech.
> Like your dear president you believe something and look for reasons to justify that belief.
1) He's not my "dear president," nor do I even consider him "mine." I hate his fucking guts, I hope he dies a slow horrible death right now -- he is an evil idiot. He deserves to be run through by a hot poker. The people that believe his bullshit all deserve to die too. 2) Your argument is solidly based in religion, which is his defining characteristic. Therefore, it is much more accurate to compare YOU to that little fucker. Nice try at a troll, though. 3) I don't mould my life to anything. If you do, you are trying to be something you are not. I live my life how I damn well see fit and if you don't like it, to damned bad, but I'm certainly not a bad person, despite the porn that I have looked at. 4) I don't need to justify anything. Just because you look for justification in everything does not mean it was intended to be there.
> I spend X dollars on it and therefore is had better be good.
Then you are going to be VERY, VERY depressed as soon as you discover this thing called "reality" that shows price has NOTHING to do with quality. e.g., Nike
> someone else posted the following comment
Most of those points were fucking obvious and had very little to do with the actual porn itself. The pornography was a stimulus that elicited behaviors on which the subject was already prone to act.
Oh, and I liked the phrase "mature university population..." Not exactly representative of the normal population.
Not only that, but they talk about "violent pornography" as if that stuff was the norm. You won't find any violent porn in your average "dirty mag section" of your store.
The points that weren't about predisposition or unnormal types of porn, were so vague as to be worthless. What are "gravely negative consequences?" A bullshit word for "we can't quantify something we want you to think is bad.
Some of the summary points only seem bad if you already believed that porn is bad. 40-60% of the people who watched an exciting act felt like recreating it... NO CRAP. Half of those reportedly did it. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out! The "scientists" who did this study actually imply that copying an action is automatically a bad thing? BIG FRIGGIN DEAL. There are only 1-2 good points in that post.
> As to your calls for a shred of evidence that pornography causes people to commit sex crimes. I was never suggesting that
First off, that is not what I was calling for evidence on, you need to read a little harder before replying to someone, especially with such a self-righteous, smug tone. I was asking for evidence that helps your original conclusion (quoted): "There are no positives in pornography" which leaves only negatives which, since you didn't list the negatives, generally includes the standard bullshit arguments, the most common of which are that pornography leads to rape, molestation, voting Republican, and clubbing seals. OK, I made the last one up.
I would be interested to see the study you mention, so if you do find that link sometime soon, please post it. I have some doubts as to its accuracy and have to question what methods were used to come up with such a ridiculously high number. When wanting a divorce, you have to have a reason, and "I don't like him any more" isn't generally considered a good reason. If you tell the judge that the other person was addicted to pornography, however, you can start a whole other line of questioning, leading up to making the other person look like all the things I listed above (rapist, etc). I believe it's lawyer tricks that led to a statistic like that, not reality.
Another possibility is that Christians are keeping their sheep so deluded to reality that they convince their women that looking at porn is paramount to calling God your bitch, so when a normal, healthy male looks at some, his wife thinks it's unnatural -- after all, the church tells you (not necessarily you, per se) that you're all evil -- and goes overboard with it, demanding a divorce for being normal. And it is normal to want to look at other people, clothed or not.
I just cannot agree at all that porn is harmful. It may have effects that you don't like, but that is NOT harmful. The real harm comes from ignorance or existing mental issues.
> when you aren't carrying anything other than yourself, you're still burning 20MPG.
Granted. But the van will still burn the same amount as well, so suggesting an alternative that is no better than the original is not the best solution.
WTF are you talking about. I said "saying something doesn't make it so" and you want FUCKING DATA TO BACK IT UP??? Ok, here's some fucking data: You are a motherfucking asslicking snail. Oh, you aren't a snail? THAT PROVES MY FUCKING POINT. How dense are you?
> What as opposed to just pushing someone towards doing something bad?
And you have some data to provide? You made a completely baseless statement backed up with zero data. I call you out. You ask for data to back up a statement that is NOT IN QUESTION.
GIVE ME ONE SHRED OF (nonbiased) EVIDENCE to suggest pornography made someone go out and commit a sex crime where the impetus was not already there without pornography. You can not, you are trolling. QED.
To me, being free to take what drugs I want takes precedence over the government telling me what drugs to take, thanks. But that's not really important...
> what's worth more
That's an either-or fallacy (don't know the technical name). Your post is assuming that we can either have health care OR we can have sane drug laws. We can do both. Just having legalized drugs simply will not make a noticeable increase in health care costs unless the health care companies decide to use it as an excuse to rape their customers for even more money.
> If you move the stuff a short distance and not all the frequently, you can always make a few trips.
Yeah, because four trips at 30MPG is WAY better than one at 20MPG... *BOGGLE*
That's a dumb suggestion. Why don't you tell them to rent a van... Wait, you did...
> maybe a van would be a better vehicle [...] as it has far more cargo space and similar fuel efficiency and costs.
So your problem, then, is not with fuel efficiency at all, but with the SUVs themselves? If your suggestion is to stop being a prick by not driving an SUV, but instead drive a similar (usually larger) vehicle with THE SAME GAS MILEAGE? Or is your argument based on efficient use of space, since a van will have more available? If they needed that much more space, they would have gotten a van. How long did you think about that before posting?
> Am I the only guy out there that WOULDN'T want to date a woman who wouldn't date me unless I had a Caddy?
No you aren't, but that means I'm single.
It seems that roughly 93% of the women out there are like that. 4% aren't gold diggers, but are married to some redneck dickhead, under 1% are good people with good husbands. The rest are mentally retarded and can't provide a yes or no answer.
> No one ever wants to regulate their own behavior. > It would be admitting "I need the government to control me because I can not control myself."
Regulating your own behavior is admitting that you need the government to regulate your behavior?
Ummm, not sure if I get your point. If you really meant the second part, has it ever ocurred to you that people CAN regulate their behavior, but choose not to and also choose not to have their government run their lives? Please remember that not everyone is happy being socialist ("socialist" here is not intended to be derogatory, even though Republicans have turned it into a "bad word" in the U.S.).
Slashdot Mirror
> You are right, the proper mod would have been "Informative."
To be informed requires a lack of previous knowledge. Even if they don't want to admit it, just about everyone knows Bush's mental capacities.
> Why do most people think that it is more evil?
Because most people are christians that believe everything another christian tells them about christianity, even if there's no biblical basis. Especially if it means they can insult someone else they are scared of or if they can prevent them from enjoying themselves in any way that doesn't involve singing hymns or reading the bible.
> when I get too old to keep working, under your plan, I would have to resort to crime to make ends meet
Or, *GASP* try relying on family! God forbid someone has to compromise for another in his family.
> If you needed a special hammer [...] and you researched it while at work, your time easily could be worth $500
But that time would be listed under operating expenses, not purchase expenses.
> the President is making an issue of reforming it,
Woah, hold on there. He's not reforming it, he's destroying it. I don't care either way, but let's call a horse a horse (of course!).
> I was under the impression they were suing people for making copies for their own use
They are. The RIAA used their billion-dollar lawyers to buy a ruling that giving a thing in exchange for the same thing is "making a profit."
Since no money changed hands and each person's financial position is exactly the same, I don't know HOW, but that's where it is.
> > The time I will start worrying is if "emergency powers" gets mentioned
> Conservatives were saying the same thing after President Clinton was re-elected.
Yes, but they weren't seriously considering it as a possibility, backed by his prior actions.
> In most of the country, you don't have to register your gun.
In much of the country. Saying "most" is simply incorrect.
> There is a shortage of licensed health care professionals at the moment
I don't buy that. It's not that there aren't enough, but that some of these assholes go into stuff like plastic surgery -- obviously that is because they are greedy and plastic surgeons make more than any responsible and sane person can spend.
If someone reading is a plastic surgeon and takes offense to that... fuck off, you greedy bastard.
> Eliminate insurance. I welcome any explanation as to why I'm an idiot for even considering this.
Even with tort reform, you are going to have perfectly reasonable mistakes happen that are worthy of a lawsuit. Well, if that doctor doesn't have a huge bank account (I know it's extremely rare to find a doctor that isn't overpaid, but imagine he just paid for his latest jet in cash), the first lawsuit will bankrupt him. Unless by tort reform you mean "doctors cannot be sued," which I doubt. That's why they have insurance.
Hate to break it to you but Enterprise's replacement will have zero sci fi to it, so it may not have as interesting a replacement as you think.
OR, you can stop with the fucking idiotic statements like that.
.
Monitoring my web browsing WILL IN NO WAY PREVENT ANY TERRORIST ATTACK, EVER.
<FUCKING SCREAMING!>E.V.E.R.</FUCKING SCREAMING!>
I wish there was a way to emphasize just how loudly I want that said so that you understand. Millions of people will not die in a terrorist attack, you fucking fearmonger. There is simply no way for that to happen in the real world. Saying "thousands" is even disingenuous, as that will probably not happen any time in the near future either.
A hundred here, a hundred there, that's how terrorists work. 9/11 was either a freak occurrence or aided by the US government.
> I posted that quote about abuse for a reason
If that quote says something about me, it says something about you too... That you are interested in calculated insult rather than rational discussion. Speaking of which, you didn't offer any answers to any questions, but instead took offense at the way I wrote -- which was in response to your self-righteous tone, so justified.
You, sir, are a troll.
> Lets define religion is not speech.
That's a great idea! It reinforces negative ideals towards women, foreigners, other religions... Therefore, religion stands solidly in the category of hate speech, not free speech.
> Like your dear president you believe something and look for reasons to justify that belief.
1) He's not my "dear president," nor do I even consider him "mine." I hate his fucking guts, I hope he dies a slow horrible death right now -- he is an evil idiot. He deserves to be run through by a hot poker. The people that believe his bullshit all deserve to die too.
2) Your argument is solidly based in religion, which is his defining characteristic. Therefore, it is much more accurate to compare YOU to that little fucker. Nice try at a troll, though.
3) I don't mould my life to anything. If you do, you are trying to be something you are not. I live my life how I damn well see fit and if you don't like it, to damned bad, but I'm certainly not a bad person, despite the porn that I have looked at.
4) I don't need to justify anything. Just because you look for justification in everything does not mean it was intended to be there.
> I spend X dollars on it and therefore is had better be good.
Then you are going to be VERY, VERY depressed as soon as you discover this thing called "reality" that shows price has NOTHING to do with quality. e.g., Nike
> someone else posted the following comment
Most of those points were fucking obvious and had very little to do with the actual porn itself. The pornography was a stimulus that elicited behaviors on which the subject was already prone to act.
Oh, and I liked the phrase "mature university population..." Not exactly representative of the normal population.
Not only that, but they talk about "violent pornography" as if that stuff was the norm. You won't find any violent porn in your average "dirty mag section" of your store.
The points that weren't about predisposition or unnormal types of porn, were so vague as to be worthless. What are "gravely negative consequences?" A bullshit word for "we can't quantify something we want you to think is bad.
Some of the summary points only seem bad if you already believed that porn is bad. 40-60% of the people who watched an exciting act felt like recreating it... NO CRAP. Half of those reportedly did it. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out! The "scientists" who did this study actually imply that copying an action is automatically a bad thing? BIG FRIGGIN DEAL. There are only 1-2 good points in that post.
This is /., dignity is left at the front page.
:)
> As to your calls for a shred of evidence that pornography causes people to commit sex crimes. I was never suggesting that
First off, that is not what I was calling for evidence on, you need to read a little harder before replying to someone, especially with such a self-righteous, smug tone. I was asking for evidence that helps your original conclusion (quoted): "There are no positives in pornography" which leaves only negatives which, since you didn't list the negatives, generally includes the standard bullshit arguments, the most common of which are that pornography leads to rape, molestation, voting Republican, and clubbing seals. OK, I made the last one up.
I would be interested to see the study you mention, so if you do find that link sometime soon, please post it. I have some doubts as to its accuracy and have to question what methods were used to come up with such a ridiculously high number. When wanting a divorce, you have to have a reason, and "I don't like him any more" isn't generally considered a good reason. If you tell the judge that the other person was addicted to pornography, however, you can start a whole other line of questioning, leading up to making the other person look like all the things I listed above (rapist, etc). I believe it's lawyer tricks that led to a statistic like that, not reality.
Another possibility is that Christians are keeping their sheep so deluded to reality that they convince their women that looking at porn is paramount to calling God your bitch, so when a normal, healthy male looks at some, his wife thinks it's unnatural -- after all, the church tells you (not necessarily you, per se) that you're all evil -- and goes overboard with it, demanding a divorce for being normal. And it is normal to want to look at other people, clothed or not.
I just cannot agree at all that porn is harmful. It may have effects that you don't like, but that is NOT harmful. The real harm comes from ignorance or existing mental issues.
I like your sig
Yes, but usually with "more," it also implies that there was at least one to begin with, which is what I was questioning.
Naw, not at all :) Of course, I'm so cynical I wouldn't call it bitter, but realistic. Bitches...
> when you aren't carrying anything other than yourself, you're still burning 20MPG.
Granted. But the van will still burn the same amount as well, so suggesting an alternative that is no better than the original is not the best solution.
> And you have some data to provide?
WTF are you talking about. I said "saying something doesn't make it so" and you want FUCKING DATA TO BACK IT UP??? Ok, here's some fucking data: You are a motherfucking asslicking snail. Oh, you aren't a snail? THAT PROVES MY FUCKING POINT. How dense are you?
> What as opposed to just pushing someone towards doing something bad?
And you have some data to provide? You made a completely baseless statement backed up with zero data. I call you out. You ask for data to back up a statement that is NOT IN QUESTION.
GIVE ME ONE SHRED OF (nonbiased) EVIDENCE to suggest pornography made someone go out and commit a sex crime where the impetus was not already there without pornography. You can not, you are trolling. QED.
To me, being free to take what drugs I want takes precedence over the government telling me what drugs to take, thanks. But that's not really important...
> what's worth more
That's an either-or fallacy (don't know the technical name). Your post is assuming that we can either have health care OR we can have sane drug laws. We can do both. Just having legalized drugs simply will not make a noticeable increase in health care costs unless the health care companies decide to use it as an excuse to rape their customers for even more money.
> God forbid you should have to use your personality to attract women.
God forbid a woman look for personality instead of a car emblem.
> If you move the stuff a short distance and not all the frequently, you can always make a few trips.
Yeah, because four trips at 30MPG is WAY better than one at 20MPG... *BOGGLE*
That's a dumb suggestion. Why don't you tell them to rent a van... Wait, you did...
> maybe a van would be a better vehicle [...] as it has far more cargo space and similar fuel efficiency and costs.
So your problem, then, is not with fuel efficiency at all, but with the SUVs themselves? If your suggestion is to stop being a prick by not driving an SUV, but instead drive a similar (usually larger) vehicle with THE SAME GAS MILEAGE? Or is your argument based on efficient use of space, since a van will have more available? If they needed that much more space, they would have gotten a van. How long did you think about that before posting?
> SUV's are for men with tiny dicks and stupid women.
Making stupid statements like that does not make the original statement any less valid. Most women are attracted to money. Period.
> Am I the only guy out there that WOULDN'T want to date a woman who wouldn't date me unless I had a Caddy?
No you aren't, but that means I'm single.
It seems that roughly 93% of the women out there are like that. 4% aren't gold diggers, but are married to some redneck dickhead, under 1% are good people with good husbands. The rest are mentally retarded and can't provide a yes or no answer.
> No one ever wants to regulate their own behavior.
> It would be admitting "I need the government to control me because I can not control myself."
Regulating your own behavior is admitting that you need the government to regulate your behavior?
Ummm, not sure if I get your point. If you really meant the second part, has it ever ocurred to you that people CAN regulate their behavior, but choose not to and also choose not to have their government run their lives? Please remember that not everyone is happy being socialist ("socialist" here is not intended to be derogatory, even though Republicans have turned it into a "bad word" in the U.S.).