> He makes Americans look like idiots every time he says it wrong.
That is a flat-out lie you pansyassed* somethingorsomeothersuchthing! He makes Americans look like idiots because they reelected him. Get it right, man!
> believe that if taxes were voluntary it would go a lot further towards making the voice of the people heard than voting alone
If taxes were voluntary, no one would pay them. Might as well abolish them and make a volunteer government that can't do anything due to the lack of money.
> > because its WAY easier to make lots of money if you have lots of money > That is a bunch of BS. Mr. Gates, the wealthiest man in the US did not start out with much money at all.
It is NOT BS. Having a single case is not proof. Look at the top X% of wealthy individuals instead of just the top 1 and you will see a much different picture. I don't know where you got the idea that they all worked hard to go from nothing to billionaire, but that is very rare. As much as I dislike MS, I do give Bill credit for stepping up and "doing what it takes" to be staggeringly wealthy.
The best way to make money is to invest it. However, to start investing enough to make good money, you have to have a nice chunk to begin with. That is not BS, it's a fact.
> The American people demand guns for all people, regardless of previous felony convictions and mental disabilities!
You're an idiot (or just purposefully ignorant). If the felony conviction or mental disorder is nonviolent (and not dangerous to themself), why should they be banned from obtaining a gun?
> Unlike the rest of the world we prefer to listen to Bono and Madonna only when they sing.
You sick bastard. As you know, when they speak bullshit comes out. But when they sing it's even worse. Bono can't even count to four! (If you didn't know, a recent U2 song starts, translated: "one, two, three, fourteen") Yeah, a "brilliant artist" indeed.
I hate their whiny singing (as if Madonna could sing without auto-tone correction equipment -- she can't) even more than their whiny commentary. Rich pricks trying to tell the rest of us what to do. Here's a fucking hint: if you're so worried, Bono, why do you still have so much money in the bank? Donate it to some worthy cause. But then, of course, you wouldn't mean anything to the Hollywood elite & you wouldn't have your fucking artificial soap box.
Sorry, felt like ranting on something, and this was a good one to come up today.
> Do they really go into the university to learn or just to get an education?
Neither. They do it to get a piece of paper that is usually needed to get a job that pays more than 7 bucks an hour (besides telemarketing).
And the ones who think they are good at sports go to college so that they can be seen by professional sports recruiters. Then they are allowed to pass classes with less work, because sports players are special for some reason. When they hurt their leg junior year, have to leave the team and flunk out because the coach isn't making special deals for him any more, he picks up a drug habit and works at Mcdonalds the rest of his crappy life. Ever seen the American show "Married With Children?" Not exactly a top-quality program, but a good example of what happens to college athletes years later (he was actually supposed to be a high school athlete) minus the drugs.
> I was lucky enough that my parents could afford private schooling/college
So you have no firsthand evidence that public schools are so horrible? You didn't even GO TO ONE? Sounds more like you got extra opportunity to go to a better-than-average* place and want to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunity. To make yourself feel better about your arrogance, you try to tell us that it's shameful that not everyone went to a 20 grand-a-year grade school.
(* I'm assuming -- the local Catholic private school (Wheeling, WV) is much worse than the public school, although the private-private school is WAAAY better than either one.)
> I agree that there is a cultural problem (why do I hear racial in that?)
Because you are a racist? No, because that's what you wanted to hear. You want to paint the person you argue against as a racist, a subtle ad-hominem, to make him look like an idiot. No one else said race played a part at all. Some schools will even accept "minorities" over whites. The "race" issue, isn't: yes, there happen to be more black people in lower class areas. You can't be surprised by that, as there have only been a few generations since many of their families would have been slaves. I have no intention of saying it's remotely "fair," (assuming such a concept truly exists) but just that that is the way it is. It's a matter of history, not current, active opression, why things are how they are.
If I'm mistaken about your intentions, sorry, but I see no other reason for you to have brought it up.
> Even with good grades and high motivation you will not get into Ivy League coming from South Central High School
With those same attributes, coming from anywhere except places like Beverly Hills you won't get in either. Ivy League Schools are only "big" because of their name. They might be able to draw better faculty because they can afford to pay them more, but someone who works hard enough can get the same or better education anywhere else.
Not only that, but it seems unlikely to me that every single school in Europe is free. With good enough grades, can any English person go to Oxford for free? If not, how can you say a damned thing about not going to an Ivy league school in the U.S. for free?
> then you say Tax money will pay for the needy?
Yes it does, someitmes in the form of loans. Government Student loans are still covered by tax-collected moneys and anyone can get a loan to send them AT LEAST to a local college where they can get an associates degree and then go to a better school, since they have proven they can do it and get better financial options.
> Yes, there is some help, but you could hardly say they outright pay for it...
Only if you MUST go Ivy League, then they'll say "fuck off." Go to a REAL school and they'll pay for most of it.
> The cash flows of most medical professionals, doctors included, place them squarely in the middle class
Bullshit. I'm all for defending doctors, as I work in a small community hospital with some great docs, but they can still afford to purchase a new BMW or Lexus every year -- that is not middle class.
> therefore I must conclude that you cannot count to four.
I must conclude that you cannot concieve of anyone living through different experiences than your own, and having a different set of knowledge than your own. Gee, maybe he hasn't gone searching for virgin couples as much as you have.
Absolutely. It seems that the ones that would be most efficient would have to be very sleek to capture the wind current well. That sleekness makes them all that much cooler. It's not like they're trying to construct Man of Le Mancha style windmills here (you know, the big rickety wooden ones).
> produce equally implausible models which don't predict warming. Why hasn't anyone done this?
Because seeking implausibility is just silly! (I'm just messing with you.) Don't know, maybe they have, but the aliens have hidden the results because they don't want us to find out that the Earth is just a big oven and we're the main course! Something about boiling a frog slowly comes to mind.
Err wait, that's backwards. They're freezing us to preserve us longer! That's it.
> unless somehow you are psychic there can be no basis for this without an omniscient God guiding you
There is more proof for the existence of psychics than the existence of God. UFOs too, for that matter. Of course, the nature of the religion precludes the possibility of proof (therwise it's not Faith), so proof of existence isn't much of an indicator of correctness when religion is concerned.
Morality doesn't have to be an built-in thing. It can be a form of complex self-preservation. If I do something bad enough, chances are pretty good (outside the realm of a society with laws against seeking direct retaliation) that something similar or worse will happen to me as retribution. Unfortunately, it is this aversion to the backlash of vengeance that keeps many people acting "morally."
> how can you tell right from wrong without an absolute moral code, which must come from the perfect nature of God?
I don't believe in an absolute moral code. There are circumstances when stealing can both be seen as a bad action (it's theft) and a good action (feeding the family). Ergo, it is solidly non-absolute (IMO, of course).
Because it's so drawn-out, I have to just summarize two of your possible scenarios:
1) we're wrong about global warming and do nothing: lose $X billion to replace something that needed replaced anyway. Scientists never trusted again, no catastrophic damage
2) global warming occurs: Floods, droughts, ecological "damage," more economic damage than otherwise
> but consider the two scenerios where we choose wrong.
But I have to add more, since you only listed one of those two scenarios: C) Global warming occurs despite our best efforts: Because GW was not caused by the things we hastened to replace (shoddily, due to the mad rush to get it done), we first lost all the money we had to replace things, then those brand new reactors get wiped out in the massive flooding that follows, making us even worse-off. Double economic loss, same life loss, scientists are still not trusted.
Of course, there's the other possibility, which I admit is unlikely to happen: D) There is no controllable global warming, we do nothing except we keep on living as we are, and we have more time to mature alternate power sources to replace oil more efficiently.
> The loudest voices are always extremists,
DAMN IT, WHAY AREN'T YOU MORE #$*&ING MODERATE!! GO, WHATEVER! HOORAY FOR APATHY!
> Isn't the natural consequence of atheism ultimately Sadism, where the only thing that has value is your own pursuit of pleasure?
Okay, we had been having a nice conversation, but that's just a troll. If you truly believe that, you are fucked in the head and it shows that you have no interest in much more than moral superiority based on a faulty premise.
For your fucking information, you are wrong. All religion does is separate people, point out their differences, focus on them, and make them kill each other. See how I can bullshit too? Like I've said so many times, saying something does not make it so. Just because you need a crutch in life, it does not mean I need your childrens' stories to make my life have meaning.
But if you were serious and are that ignorant to believe your words truly, get a dictionary: ATHEISM IS NOT NIHILISM. An Atheist does not necessarily believe that all feelings are JUST chemical imbalances. They are still there for a reason. I never said life is pointless, evidently you totally skipped over where I said just the opposite. Other people still can have meaning to you because of the actions they chose to take previously that benefitted you, showed patience for you, ar maybe just because you believe in the equality of men on their own merits, and not based on whichever fairy tale they happen to succumb to.
Your logic is about as clear as saying "There's no point in playing a game, if your character is just going to disappear when it's done. Might as well give up right off the bat and not even try." Not evreyone is so full of self-doubt that their lives have no meaning without an ultimate goal. For some, it is not the goal, but the path.
In case you didn't know, Buddhists don't generally believe in gods, but by your logic they MUST become sadists. Are you fucking blind, man? They are infinitely more peaceful and generally wiser than any given Christian. They are more devoted than any God-"fearing" (although very few take that phrase seriously any more) person I have ever met.
> I wonder, what will your last thoughts be?
I hope that I may live on in the memories of those I touched, and that they may pass a small part of me on to the people that they have touched, and so on. There's no god in that statement.
> every day [an Atheist has to] get up and convince [him]self that life is worth living.
A Christian, Jew, whatever, has to do the same. It's just that their reason is supernatural. I convince myself that life is worth living because there are things that I want to do before I'm dead. If I don't get to, well, that sucks, but suicide guarantees I can never have the chance to do them -- I don't need faith in God for death to be unappealing.
As far as being guided in life, I get those feelings too, but they point me in a different, nonreligious direction. I don't think it's God trying to guide me, however. I consider it to be my subconcious guiding me in the direction that is most beneficial (truly beneficial, not greed, theft or anything). I still have a conscience without thinking someone is watching over me.
Slashdot Mirror
> He makes Americans look like idiots every time he says it wrong.
That is a flat-out lie you pansyassed* somethingorsomeothersuchthing! He makes Americans look like idiots because they reelected him. Get it right, man!
*=(joke)
> this issue has become way too politicized, mostly by bitter liberals who hate that Bush is President again.
Hey! I'm bitter about Bush and still think that Environmentalists are fundamentally FUDdy. Take THAT. Err... whatever "that" is.
> believe that if taxes were voluntary it would go a lot further towards making the voice of the people heard than voting alone
If taxes were voluntary, no one would pay them. Might as well abolish them and make a volunteer government that can't do anything due to the lack of money.
> > because its WAY easier to make lots of money if you have lots of money
> That is a bunch of BS. Mr. Gates, the wealthiest man in the US did not start out with much money at all.
It is NOT BS. Having a single case is not proof. Look at the top X% of wealthy individuals instead of just the top 1 and you will see a much different picture. I don't know where you got the idea that they all worked hard to go from nothing to billionaire, but that is very rare. As much as I dislike MS, I do give Bill credit for stepping up and "doing what it takes" to be staggeringly wealthy.
The best way to make money is to invest it. However, to start investing enough to make good money, you have to have a nice chunk to begin with. That is not BS, it's a fact.
> The American people demand guns for all people, regardless of previous felony convictions and mental disabilities!
You're an idiot (or just purposefully ignorant). If the felony conviction or mental disorder is nonviolent (and not dangerous to themself), why should they be banned from obtaining a gun?
> Unlike the rest of the world we prefer to listen to Bono and Madonna only when they sing.
You sick bastard. As you know, when they speak bullshit comes out. But when they sing it's even worse. Bono can't even count to four! (If you didn't know, a recent U2 song starts, translated: "one, two, three, fourteen") Yeah, a "brilliant artist" indeed.
I hate their whiny singing (as if Madonna could sing without auto-tone correction equipment -- she can't) even more than their whiny commentary. Rich pricks trying to tell the rest of us what to do. Here's a fucking hint: if you're so worried, Bono, why do you still have so much money in the bank? Donate it to some worthy cause. But then, of course, you wouldn't mean anything to the Hollywood elite & you wouldn't have your fucking artificial soap box.
Sorry, felt like ranting on something, and this was a good one to come up today.
> Do they really go into the university to learn or just to get an education?
Neither. They do it to get a piece of paper that is usually needed to get a job that pays more than 7 bucks an hour (besides telemarketing).
And the ones who think they are good at sports go to college so that they can be seen by professional sports recruiters. Then they are allowed to pass classes with less work, because sports players are special for some reason. When they hurt their leg junior year, have to leave the team and flunk out because the coach isn't making special deals for him any more, he picks up a drug habit and works at Mcdonalds the rest of his crappy life. Ever seen the American show "Married With Children?" Not exactly a top-quality program, but a good example of what happens to college athletes years later (he was actually supposed to be a high school athlete) minus the drugs.
> I was lucky enough that my parents could afford private schooling/college
So you have no firsthand evidence that public schools are so horrible? You didn't even GO TO ONE? Sounds more like you got extra opportunity to go to a better-than-average* place and want to look down on those that didn't have the same opportunity. To make yourself feel better about your arrogance, you try to tell us that it's shameful that not everyone went to a 20 grand-a-year grade school.
(* I'm assuming -- the local Catholic private school (Wheeling, WV) is much worse than the public school, although the private-private school is WAAAY better than either one.)
> I agree that there is a cultural problem (why do I hear racial in that?)
Because you are a racist? No, because that's what you wanted to hear. You want to paint the person you argue against as a racist, a subtle ad-hominem, to make him look like an idiot. No one else said race played a part at all. Some schools will even accept "minorities" over whites. The "race" issue, isn't: yes, there happen to be more black people in lower class areas. You can't be surprised by that, as there have only been a few generations since many of their families would have been slaves. I have no intention of saying it's remotely "fair," (assuming such a concept truly exists) but just that that is the way it is. It's a matter of history, not current, active opression, why things are how they are.
If I'm mistaken about your intentions, sorry, but I see no other reason for you to have brought it up.
> Even with good grades and high motivation you will not get into Ivy League coming from South Central High School
With those same attributes, coming from anywhere except places like Beverly Hills you won't get in either. Ivy League Schools are only "big" because of their name. They might be able to draw better faculty because they can afford to pay them more, but someone who works hard enough can get the same or better education anywhere else.
Not only that, but it seems unlikely to me that every single school in Europe is free. With good enough grades, can any English person go to Oxford for free? If not, how can you say a damned thing about not going to an Ivy league school in the U.S. for free?
> then you say Tax money will pay for the needy?
Yes it does, someitmes in the form of loans. Government Student loans are still covered by tax-collected moneys and anyone can get a loan to send them AT LEAST to a local college where they can get an associates degree and then go to a better school, since they have proven they can do it and get better financial options.
> Yes, there is some help, but you could hardly say they outright pay for it...
Only if you MUST go Ivy League, then they'll say "fuck off." Go to a REAL school and they'll pay for most of it.
> The cash flows of most medical professionals, doctors included, place them squarely in the middle class
Bullshit. I'm all for defending doctors, as I work in a small community hospital with some great docs, but they can still afford to purchase a new BMW or Lexus every year -- that is not middle class.
> Humans having unprotected, "illegitimate" sex sometimes is as "normal" as breathing
There is no such thing as illegitimate sex except, of course, child molestation.
> therefore I must conclude that you cannot count to four.
I must conclude that you cannot concieve of anyone living through different experiences than your own, and having a different set of knowledge than your own. Gee, maybe he hasn't gone searching for virgin couples as much as you have.
> Why do you think "greenies" want people to switch to alternatives?
Those he was referring to as "greenies" simply want to be right and for others to tell them they are right... or at least to do what they say.
> both candidates agreed that the single largest current threat to the USA is loose nuclear weapons.
I can't claim to now their actual thoughts, but spreading fear buys votes in some circumstances.
> That's just a ridiculous prospect.
Only if you are confined to short-term speculation.
> Nuclear is not the silver bullet.
Don't take this as an insult, but just saying "this isn't perfect so let's forget it" isn't a silver bullet either. It's a blank.
> All those windmills interfere with natural air currents.
Aren't most of the air currents important to weather higher than these things?
> I think windmills are very elegant structures.
Absolutely. It seems that the ones that would be most efficient would have to be very sleek to capture the wind current well. That sleekness makes them all that much cooler. It's not like they're trying to construct Man of Le Mancha style windmills here (you know, the big rickety wooden ones).
> you're american aren't you?
That kind of statement also alienates those Americans who believe what you have to say.
> produce equally implausible models which don't predict warming. Why hasn't anyone done this?
Because seeking implausibility is just silly! (I'm just messing with you.) Don't know, maybe they have, but the aliens have hidden the results because they don't want us to find out that the Earth is just a big oven and we're the main course! Something about boiling a frog slowly comes to mind.
Err wait, that's backwards. They're freezing us to preserve us longer! That's it.
> unless somehow you are psychic there can be no basis for this without an omniscient God guiding you
There is more proof for the existence of psychics than the existence of God. UFOs too, for that matter. Of course, the nature of the religion precludes the possibility of proof (therwise it's not Faith), so proof of existence isn't much of an indicator of correctness when religion is concerned.
Morality doesn't have to be an built-in thing. It can be a form of complex self-preservation. If I do something bad enough, chances are pretty good (outside the realm of a society with laws against seeking direct retaliation) that something similar or worse will happen to me as retribution. Unfortunately, it is this aversion to the backlash of vengeance that keeps many people acting "morally."
> how can you tell right from wrong without an absolute moral code, which must come from the perfect nature of God?
I don't believe in an absolute moral code. There are circumstances when stealing can both be seen as a bad action (it's theft) and a good action (feeding the family). Ergo, it is solidly non-absolute (IMO, of course).
Because it's so drawn-out, I have to just summarize two of your possible scenarios:
1) we're wrong about global warming and do nothing: lose $X billion to replace something that needed replaced anyway. Scientists never trusted again, no catastrophic damage
2) global warming occurs: Floods, droughts, ecological "damage," more economic damage than otherwise
> but consider the two scenerios where we choose wrong.
But I have to add more, since you only listed one of those two scenarios:
C) Global warming occurs despite our best efforts: Because GW was not caused by the things we hastened to replace (shoddily, due to the mad rush to get it done), we first lost all the money we had to replace things, then those brand new reactors get wiped out in the massive flooding that follows, making us even worse-off. Double economic loss, same life loss, scientists are still not trusted.
Of course, there's the other possibility, which I admit is unlikely to happen:
D) There is no controllable global warming, we do nothing except we keep on living as we are, and we have more time to mature alternate power sources to replace oil more efficiently.
> The loudest voices are always extremists,
DAMN IT, WHAY AREN'T YOU MORE #$*&ING MODERATE!! GO, WHATEVER! HOORAY FOR APATHY!
> there are still a few intellectually independent souls standing up and shouting that the theory of evolution is full of it.
s/independent/depraved/
There are still millions of level-headed people knowing that the theory of God is full of it.
For the millionth time: saying something is so does not make it so.
> The best way to discredit global warming computer models would be to produce equally plausible models which don't predict warming.
None of the models are plausible. The Earth is too complex a system to accurately predict weather, even long-term, with current computing power.
> As any celebrity can attest to, if you don't want it to get out, DON'T FUCKING VIDEO TAPE IT!
As anyone else can attest to, if you don't want all your money stolen, DON'T FUCKING EARN IT!
See the problem?
> Isn't the natural consequence of atheism ultimately Sadism, where the only thing that has value is your own pursuit of pleasure?
Okay, we had been having a nice conversation, but that's just a troll. If you truly believe that, you are fucked in the head and it shows that you have no interest in much more than moral superiority based on a faulty premise.
For your fucking information, you are wrong. All religion does is separate people, point out their differences, focus on them, and make them kill each other. See how I can bullshit too? Like I've said so many times, saying something does not make it so. Just because you need a crutch in life, it does not mean I need your childrens' stories to make my life have meaning.
But if you were serious and are that ignorant to believe your words truly, get a dictionary: ATHEISM IS NOT NIHILISM. An Atheist does not necessarily believe that all feelings are JUST chemical imbalances. They are still there for a reason. I never said life is pointless, evidently you totally skipped over where I said just the opposite. Other people still can have meaning to you because of the actions they chose to take previously that benefitted you, showed patience for you, ar maybe just because you believe in the equality of men on their own merits, and not based on whichever fairy tale they happen to succumb to.
Your logic is about as clear as saying "There's no point in playing a game, if your character is just going to disappear when it's done. Might as well give up right off the bat and not even try." Not evreyone is so full of self-doubt that their lives have no meaning without an ultimate goal. For some, it is not the goal, but the path.
In case you didn't know, Buddhists don't generally believe in gods, but by your logic they MUST become sadists. Are you fucking blind, man? They are infinitely more peaceful and generally wiser than any given Christian. They are more devoted than any God-"fearing" (although very few take that phrase seriously any more) person I have ever met.
> I wonder, what will your last thoughts be?
I hope that I may live on in the memories of those I touched, and that they may pass a small part of me on to the people that they have touched, and so on. There's no god in that statement.
> every day [an Atheist has to] get up and convince [him]self that life is worth living.
A Christian, Jew, whatever, has to do the same. It's just that their reason is supernatural. I convince myself that life is worth living because there are things that I want to do before I'm dead. If I don't get to, well, that sucks, but suicide guarantees I can never have the chance to do them -- I don't need faith in God for death to be unappealing.
As far as being guided in life, I get those feelings too, but they point me in a different, nonreligious direction. I don't think it's God trying to guide me, however. I consider it to be my subconcious guiding me in the direction that is most beneficial (truly beneficial, not greed, theft or anything). I still have a conscience without thinking someone is watching over me.