Yeah I figured, that's why I decided on a joke instead of something along the lines of "you $*#@ moron, blah blah, I'm perfect, me grammer is de bestist" pedantic stuff.:)
> Something positive? There are no positives in pornography.
Saying something does not make it so, it only makes you look more ignorant than you did before.
Porn has positive properties... For one, it can give a serious release of tension that otherwise could have just built up, maybe causing a person to do something bad.
For the "Moral Majority," a man who likes porn is burdened with an addiction. A woman who likes porn is a slut who must be burned at the stake or a rape victim.
> No rational bible believing Christian can claim that sex is the devil's creation.
The problem is not what the rational ones believe. The problem is the overwhelming number of irrational Christians, many of whom seem to think that they can force others to conform to their restrictive beliefs.
> Sex is encouraged in the bible (and for reasons other than just procreation)
Tell that (out of context) to the average Christian and probably at least half of them would call you a liar, especially for the second part. Double the chances if they are Catholic. Provide the context and it's suddenly holy.
> If someone takes care of their body and lives a healthy lifestyle, why should he/she have to be burdened for those who do not respect their health and require excessive medical care?
And how is that different WRT drugs as opposed to the effects of fast food and preservative-laden food? Aside from the fact that the dollar cost to society is higher with fast food, the only difference I know of is that a multibillion dollar company profits from selling burgers, and the government profits from jailing people who harmed no one. The public loses money to the privatized prison systems who charge more per year to maintain a single prisoner than many families make during that same year.
Legalize drugs and all the money you save by not having to pay for their jail sentences would cover the MINOR increase in health care premiums. That is, IF WE HAD PUBLIC HEALTH CARE!!! We do not, so there is no public health care cost increase.
And what I'm saying is that he is trying to imply that consumer & citizen are mutually exclusive somehow. Hell, 99.9999% of the time they are the SAME THING.
When a law is passed that favors "consumers," that means it favors people who buy things. Who buys things? THE FREAKING CITIZENS.
He's trying to get all pissy about something because he doesn't like this particular choice of words. Unless he never goes to a store, HE IS A CONSUMER. Whether he likes the label or not, he is one. He is ALSO a citizen. It's aggravating to see people acting like a victim in something that is not only in their best interests, but he's a self-appointed "victim" just because he doesn't like a word! He hasn't given any explanation as to how the word is offensive to him, and even moreso how it does not apply to him. How, exactly, is he NOT a consumer as well as a citizen?
What if I started bitching: "I'm not a citizen, I'm a human being, damnit! Stop oppressing me with your words!" You'd think I was crazy or an idiot because the two are not mutually exclusive, inclusive, nor are they contradictory.
One thing about "Missing Links." There have been a few found, but every time (and inconsistently, I have heard) one is found, the Creationists just say "Oh that is a man/ape, not in-between." The inability to cope with discoveries in science and reality is my #1 problem with many religions, I just have the most experience with christians.
> I believe in God, in creation, and all that. But, on the other hand I also believe that evolution [takes place] > the earth is a very old place indeed
That's good, and in a way, I envy you. The ones I have the REAL problem with are the Creationists who cannot accept that there was time other than the accounts in the bible. The Earth is way more than 10,000 years old.
Sometimes I assume (probably incorrectly) that people are Young-Earth Creationists and not just regular-ole-christians, but To be really christian, I think one MUST be a creationist. Otherwise, you are saying "the stuff about creation is a story, but the God stuff is real." I don't like people cherrypicking from the bible what is "true" or not.
> It is in my view no more strange to believe that God has always been here
Waitasec... You are saying that given the two choices: 1) The universe goes back infinitely since there must be something before something else 2) An ageless being snapped his fingers and "everything" popped into existence, yet somehow he existed beforehand
And you say #2 is just as sound as the other? I'm not blaming you for believing, but that just sounds... incredible.
> How that would truly be depressing for all of life to be just these few years between birth and death
No, it's not my lifespan that depresses me, it's what has happened during it. Life is what you make of it, I think it's silly to need a god to not be depressed. Do you have to do everything "In God's Name" to not feel bad about it? How can you wash your dishes without praising him and the food he put on them (well, you helped a bit, having a job & all)?
Do you think animals "know" God? If not, do you think they are depressed? Or do we get depressed just because we are "God's Children," straying from His Word? Supposedly, animals can become depressed too. I've seen all sorts of other emotions (or maybe I'm anthropomorphizing)...
> it's one person that you pissed off and they reacted.
No, it is a person in a position of power that reacted. A professional who is supposed to, according to his state Bar Association, act in a professional matter. Whining that someone doesn't like what you do -- when it is a known fact that people (in general) do not like them -- is unprofessional. This person has been given power, by the state Bar, and is expected to act like a representative of law, having him put in jail for a legal activity is unacceptable.
Yes, actually, because there are plenty of people out there who would think that was a realistic solution. They, of course, have never had a job that required them to be on call or had other peoples' lives depending on them.
And I'm saying being a citizen and being a consumer are not mututally exclusive. If you buy things, you are a consumer, so stop splitting hairs. You are taking offense at being called something you ARE!
> It flies in the face of something that they believe in
Forcing your belief over science is, IMO, keeping them ignorant. The statement stands.
> and so far no one can prove that it is correct
Oh, but you CAN, OTOH, prove Creationism? What, you can't? There is infinitely more proof of Evolution than Creationism (or I.D. if you prefer one word over another, it's the same): that is LESS reason to put a God sticker on all SCIENCE books.
NOTHING THAT TALKS ABOUT GOD FALLS UNDER THE REALM OF SCIENCE. PERIOD. To claim otherwise is to be a liar or an idiot.
> Is that statement not generally true and as accurate as such a short statement can be?
Admittedly, you are true about "generally," but IMO that is because the majority of people "don't get it" and just think of Darwinism. Of course, my opinion holds no sway over reality.
A problem, though, is that Evolution does not specifically exclude the possibility of multiple "starting points." I don't think Evolution can be extrapolated back past what fossil evidence we have. We can guess, but that's about the extent of it, and I don't think fossil records of few-celled organisms are very prevalent.
First off, that is not what flame means, you fucking retard. That, my friend, is a flame (and a joke, BTW).
My POINT was that you are telling us that you know what is best for a child's education, yet did not show any indication of having such an education yourself. How can you claim to know what to teach them when you can't be bothered to improve yourself?
Obviously I don't know if you are an American, but if you are...
How can you claim that we live in a "free country" then? We are at the whim of those in perceived-power and when they have a bad day, freedom has a bad day. These people wield power over others, yet are not called into question when they abuse it, unless it affects a higher-up or if enough of the public finds out (very rare).
> if some random person came up to you and started hassling you for what you do for a living,obviously you would get offended and do something about it.
Yes I would. However, because I am not a lawyer I would not have the option of having them illegally jailed. The job of a lawyer is SUPPOSED to be to defend a person's rights. He should know better than anyone that what these guys were doing was NOT illegal. He should be disbarred.
Slashdot Mirror
> do you think we'll get more man-eating aliens popping out
More? In addition to how many we have now?
> Just for the record, I do know the difference
:)
Yeah I figured, that's why I decided on a joke instead of something along the lines of "you $*#@ moron, blah blah, I'm perfect, me grammer is de bestist" pedantic stuff.
> Something positive? There are no positives in pornography.
Saying something does not make it so, it only makes you look more ignorant than you did before.
Porn has positive properties... For one, it can give a serious release of tension that otherwise could have just built up, maybe causing a person to do something bad.
> What if your girlfriend loves porn?
For the "Moral Majority," a man who likes porn is burdened with an addiction. A woman who likes porn is a slut who must be burned at the stake or a rape victim.
> He sure implied he would rule from the center in 200.
Oh, come on! Compared to what he'd have been like in 200 AD, he's extremely liberal!
> Just marry them first, and you're sweet!
And you'll never see a more dramatic and sudden change from sweet little girl to cantankerous old bitch.
(that's a joke, there, people!)
> No rational bible believing Christian can claim that sex is the devil's creation.
The problem is not what the rational ones believe. The problem is the overwhelming number of irrational Christians, many of whom seem to think that they can force others to conform to their restrictive beliefs.
> Sex is encouraged in the bible (and for reasons other than just procreation)
Tell that (out of context) to the average Christian and probably at least half of them would call you a liar, especially for the second part. Double the chances if they are Catholic. Provide the context and it's suddenly holy.
> I can't really be sure that he wasn't pulling my leg.
Well, if you run out of condoms, just have him move up a bit and all's well.
> What's the world coming too?
If the rest of the world reads & understands his comment, then just maybe it is.
> If someone takes care of their body and lives a healthy lifestyle, why should he/she have to be burdened for those who do not respect their health and require excessive medical care?
And how is that different WRT drugs as opposed to the effects of fast food and preservative-laden food? Aside from the fact that the dollar cost to society is higher with fast food, the only difference I know of is that a multibillion dollar company profits from selling burgers, and the government profits from jailing people who harmed no one. The public loses money to the privatized prison systems who charge more per year to maintain a single prisoner than many families make during that same year.
Legalize drugs and all the money you save by not having to pay for their jail sentences would cover the MINOR increase in health care premiums. That is, IF WE HAD PUBLIC HEALTH CARE!!! We do not, so there is no public health care cost increase.
And what I'm saying is that he is trying to imply that consumer & citizen are mutually exclusive somehow. Hell, 99.9999% of the time they are the SAME THING.
When a law is passed that favors "consumers," that means it favors people who buy things. Who buys things? THE FREAKING CITIZENS.
He's trying to get all pissy about something because he doesn't like this particular choice of words. Unless he never goes to a store, HE IS A CONSUMER. Whether he likes the label or not, he is one. He is ALSO a citizen. It's aggravating to see people acting like a victim in something that is not only in their best interests, but he's a self-appointed "victim" just because he doesn't like a word! He hasn't given any explanation as to how the word is offensive to him, and even moreso how it does not apply to him. How, exactly, is he NOT a consumer as well as a citizen?
What if I started bitching: "I'm not a citizen, I'm a human being, damnit! Stop oppressing me with your words!" You'd think I was crazy or an idiot because the two are not mutually exclusive, inclusive, nor are they contradictory.
Same. Exact. Thing.
Yeah, insightful... "ATTENTION PLEASE!!! NOTHING IS HAPPENING!!!"
Caps, caps, caps. Sometimes all caps is necessary.
One thing about "Missing Links." There have been a few found, but every time (and inconsistently, I have heard) one is found, the Creationists just say "Oh that is a man/ape, not in-between." The inability to cope with discoveries in science and reality is my #1 problem with many religions, I just have the most experience with christians.
> I believe in God, in creation, and all that. But, on the other hand I also believe that evolution [takes place]
> the earth is a very old place indeed
That's good, and in a way, I envy you. The ones I have the REAL problem with are the Creationists who cannot accept that there was time other than the accounts in the bible. The Earth is way more than 10,000 years old.
Sometimes I assume (probably incorrectly) that people are Young-Earth Creationists and not just regular-ole-christians, but To be really christian, I think one MUST be a creationist. Otherwise, you are saying "the stuff about creation is a story, but the God stuff is real." I don't like people cherrypicking from the bible what is "true" or not.
> It is in my view no more strange to believe that God has always been here
Waitasec... You are saying that given the two choices:
1) The universe goes back infinitely since there must be something before something else
2) An ageless being snapped his fingers and "everything" popped into existence, yet somehow he existed beforehand
And you say #2 is just as sound as the other? I'm not blaming you for believing, but that just sounds... incredible.
> How that would truly be depressing for all of life to be just these few years between birth and death
No, it's not my lifespan that depresses me, it's what has happened during it. Life is what you make of it, I think it's silly to need a god to not be depressed. Do you have to do everything "In God's Name" to not feel bad about it? How can you wash your dishes without praising him and the food he put on them (well, you helped a bit, having a job & all)?
Do you think animals "know" God? If not, do you think they are depressed? Or do we get depressed just because we are "God's Children," straying from His Word? Supposedly, animals can become depressed too. I've seen all sorts of other emotions (or maybe I'm anthropomorphizing)...
> it's one person that you pissed off and they reacted.
No, it is a person in a position of power that reacted. A professional who is supposed to, according to his state Bar Association, act in a professional matter. Whining that someone doesn't like what you do -- when it is a known fact that people (in general) do not like them -- is unprofessional. This person has been given power, by the state Bar, and is expected to act like a representative of law, having him put in jail for a legal activity is unacceptable.
> You missed the humour there then?
Yes, actually, because there are plenty of people out there who would think that was a realistic solution. They, of course, have never had a job that required them to be on call or had other peoples' lives depending on them.
Sorry.
And I'm saying being a citizen and being a consumer are not mututally exclusive. If you buy things, you are a consumer, so stop splitting hairs. You are taking offense at being called something you ARE!
> I guess I meant to say that we are able to think about the hereafter and what comes after this life.
Have you ever been a dolphin? How do you KNOW they don't have any concept of life after death?
I'm no tree-hugging hippy or card-carrying member of PETA, but it's a bit arrogant to assume we are the only species that can think.
> Presuming you are talking about an African tribe that is currently speaking that language, that is a modern langaue as well, is it not?
Okay, yes, but I believe there is a technical term "modern language" that refers to different languages, but I cannot fnd any proof for that.
> It flies in the face of something that they believe in
Forcing your belief over science is, IMO, keeping them ignorant. The statement stands.
> and so far no one can prove that it is correct
Oh, but you CAN, OTOH, prove Creationism? What, you can't? There is infinitely more proof of Evolution than Creationism (or I.D. if you prefer one word over another, it's the same): that is LESS reason to put a God sticker on all SCIENCE books.
NOTHING THAT TALKS ABOUT GOD FALLS UNDER THE REALM OF SCIENCE. PERIOD. To claim otherwise is to be a liar or an idiot.
> Is that statement not generally true and as accurate as such a short statement can be?
Admittedly, you are true about "generally," but IMO that is because the majority of people "don't get it" and just think of Darwinism. Of course, my opinion holds no sway over reality.
A problem, though, is that Evolution does not specifically exclude the possibility of multiple "starting points." I don't think Evolution can be extrapolated back past what fossil evidence we have. We can guess, but that's about the extent of it, and I don't think fossil records of few-celled organisms are very prevalent.
First off, that is not what flame means, you fucking retard. That, my friend, is a flame (and a joke, BTW).
My POINT was that you are telling us that you know what is best for a child's education, yet did not show any indication of having such an education yourself. How can you claim to know what to teach them when you can't be bothered to improve yourself?
> It might be wrong, but it is reality
Obviously I don't know if you are an American, but if you are...
How can you claim that we live in a "free country" then? We are at the whim of those in perceived-power and when they have a bad day, freedom has a bad day. These people wield power over others, yet are not called into question when they abuse it, unless it affects a higher-up or if enough of the public finds out (very rare).
> Moral of the story ... don't be a dick.
WHAT??? NO!!! The moral of the story is you can be put in JAIL for being a dick. That is the wrong message.
> avoid jokes about specific individuals or classes - unless you are very sure of your audience.
Just for a lame attempt to bring this back on topic, these guys DID know who their audience was... that was their point.
> if some random person came up to you and started hassling you for what you do for a living,obviously you would get offended and do something about it.
Yes I would. However, because I am not a lawyer I would not have the option of having them illegally jailed. The job of a lawyer is SUPPOSED to be to defend a person's rights. He should know better than anyone that what these guys were doing was NOT illegal. He should be disbarred.