> You either believe, and are biased, or don't believe, and are biased.
So you are saying that there is no possibility of ever having a nonbiased conversation on religion?
> On the other hand, no one believes in God without good reason
Such as, "my parents believed, and I respect them, so I will too." I believe there are plenty of people who do it without good reason; "good" being the key word there. They may have bad reasons too.
> except the part about Jesus being dead
Oh, really? Where does he live? Pennsylvania? That's a stupid statement, if you seriously think he's alive, you're not as smart as I thought. Believing in God is one thing. Believing someone lived for 2000 years is lunacy.
> so either me or the Hindu is wrong and I assert that the Hindu is wrong.
And I do not, so basing your arguments on the premise that yours is the only true god is logically wrong, because I and the majority of the world do not start from the same premise. Therefore, "why not" is not a good reason to believe.
> I'm not sure I would use the word "sacred" about the Bible, it is after all, only a vehicle for God's word, not the word itself
Okay, good, at least you don't take it ALL verbatim. The question then is, what is literal & what isn't? Jonah & Job are stories, but Jesus rose from the dead and he's still alive today? That's the truth?
Oh well, you know you aren't going to convert me and I'm not going to change your opinions, so I'll stop now. Vaya con Dios.
> two populations having different characteristics does not make them absolutely new species.
The longer they are apart, the more different characteristics can crop up, the more different they become. After 5,000 generations, it is very possible for the two groups to be sexually incompatible.
As far as your reference to your other post, I will not take biased surmisings by CHRISTIANS as proof of God's existence. There IS NO PROOF for the resurrection of Jesus. You have none. Saying there is "compelling evidence" is a far cry from having any at all, which you do not. Ergo, BUNK!
His reply seemed pretty decent: You're making the extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on you to prove positive (you can't prove a negative) and you can't cherrypick what's literal and what's not (at least, within the same book -- I can believe that's true between OT & NT or different books), and selectively doubting science is unreasonable.
> If you believe in a god, why not the One God, Lord of hosts? Praying to another if you believe in God would be to claim the the Lord was not all powerful and is obviously a sin.
If you believe in any gods, why not the great Vishnu? Praying to a non-Hindu god is obviously a sin! ATTENTION ALL CHRISTIANS: Saying something does not make it true. I know it's common practice, but it doesn't convince anyone else. The important bit, though, is that I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. What if I really do want to worship money. Seems silly, but so does worshipping an invisible pink unicorn... err, God. BUNK!
> > > it is sinful to indulge yourself, to the exclusion of God
So when having sex, make sure you have sex with God. (j/k, I know what you meant) Saying something is true (or sinful) does not make it a fact (or sin). BUNK!
> > > [prove] that it was meant literally, which you must do say it is "bunk"
Since everything in the Bible is stories, there is no way to prove definitively that any of it is bunk. Conversely, you can't prove any of it true, either. Considering how little evidence there is to support much of it, chances are pretty good... BUNK!
> I've only been a Christian for a year
Yet you still think you are qualified to "teach" us about your religion when you haven't even studied your own sacred text to the fullest?
> All you have to do is gracefully accept his sacrifice and confess your sins.
Kill whoever you want: as long as you confess, you'll be saved. But if one is brash enough to live a good life without talking to a 2000-year dead guy, well, you're going to hell!
Bunk, bunk, bunk, all of it. That said, congratulations on your choice to be a Christian. I tried it for a while, not my thing. Don't let people like me affect your choice (I don't seriously think I am), but try to think about things too. Just because "the Bible sez so," it's not necessarily fact. In fact, most of it specifically isn't. Read through the O.T., ALL OF IT and find passages that support whatever premise you are going for. But then, look at all the chapters around that and make sure you follow those exactly as well. The stuff around the most famous homosexuality quote (in Deuteronomy, I believe) is pretty harsh.
You'll be killing many of your wives (some of whom may be your dead brothers' widows you were forced to take in) and sacrificing children (why would God need proof from you that you love him, if he's all knowing?) in no time flat.
I was being sarcastic, I know there is no way for slavery to return in our current state. I was relying on that fact to make the point to the AC that just because 51% of the people vote yes on something it does not automatically make it right or constitutional.
> we have steps to protect from "tyranny of the majority".
Which is exactly my point. Censoring content is another (albeit much tamer) form of tyrrany of the majority. Disallowing me from saying something I want just because it is broadcast on radio waves instead of just sound waves is against free speech.
> They then let that addiction get to their kids and screw up their lives, too
I understand what you were trying to say, and I'm saying it was probably being RAPED that screwed up their lives, not the porn. Almost all kids see some porn. Sure, if they see a ton of it, that may be a bad thing, but I think the molestation likely played a bigger role. How's that for clear?
> I see a terrorist and their supporters and call it like I see it: They ARE whacko, sick, crazy, insane, un-loving, hating bastards - you should be ashamed for even symathizing with their *plight*.
I see an American and his supporters and call it like I see it: They are whacko, oppressive, warmongering, hating bastards for invading my country -- you should be ashamed for sympathizing with them, only 3,000 of their people were killed, and we didn't even do it!
See how easy it is to make someone sound like a criminal?
> there is nothing wrong with people trying to convince the government that some things should not air over the *free* channels
Freedom of speech, or press. Who decides what those things are? YOU? Christians? The government itself?
> I do not ally myself with their abortion and drug policies.
Freedom to choose for yourself and take responsibility for those choices is one of the hallmarks of Libertarianism. That doesn't mean "freedom to choose for yourself, except when I don't like what you are choosing to do." (Please don't go into "abortion is 'choosing' for the child" argument, it's bullshit and not the point)
> The general homosexual agenda hurts real families
Baseless attacks wanting to remove freedom to choose for yourself. How is me getting a blowjob from a guy instead of a girl affecting you or your family? (I'm not gay, BTW) IT ONLY HURTS FAMILIES WHO CAN'T DEAL WITH OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSING THEIR OWN LIFESTYLES. The Christian agenda hurts homosexual families. How are these statements so different to you? Because you are on one side of it.
> The environmentalist agendas hurt American people [in] an effort to get the US to be slave to the world's demands.
Attributing to malice what can be explained by media-generated fear and general stupidity (really, environmentalists spread the FUD themselves, but the point is the same) -- yeah, I don't like Libertarian enviro policy either, but I'm not the one to say it's wrong. I just disagree: I don't say that they shouldn't be able to spread their beliefs.
> Most people can tell the difference between real life and television.
So we have to cater to the most unstable common denominator because it's "most" and not "everyone?"
> the sex on TV is "real" - you can't fake the nudity, touching, etc. of sex.
So? That's not an argument against having it aired, that's just a clarification. Even if news anchors were engaging in sex while reporting the news, it does not automatically mean that it is inherently bad or evil. Really, you CAN fake it with CG, but again, not the point.
What this all leads up to is this: > I am a mostly Libertarian-thinking
HOW in the hell can you claim that? Most of the things you mention are the complete opposite of Libertarian ideals. What DO you agree with them (us) about? Isolationist foreign policy? Tax policy -- where does the FCC's budget to censor come from?
> I don't think I've seen this Herbal Essences commercial, but I suspect we're talking naked/semi-naked people here. Hardly damaging the child.
You don't know the half of it. There is no nudity shown, not even a single peep of a breast. The offensive material he refers to is a woman washing her hair & moaning with pleasure... "yes, yes, YESS!"
> Both of them were sexually active by the time they were 8 years old (I am certain the uncle abused them, too)
You mention that in passing as if it weren't the PRIMARY reason! No, it's not the fault of the adult who fucked up their lives, it's because their parents looked at porn from time to time. Do you think these kids would have been closer to normal if their parents didn't look at porn, all else the same?
> Wait a minute you do believe in one man one vote don't you?
Oh, so if a bill on allowing slavery again passes, it is constitutional because the majority wanted it (just go with it, I know the majority does NOT, in fact, want that). Thanks for that insight.
> One day you will realize that there is NOTHING to watch but trash
So you come to/., where the info/trash ratio is only slightly higher, depending on who you ask. You are entirely wrong. The Discovery channel is not trash, the History channel has all kinds of good stuff. Oh, but you didn't mean the GOOD channels, did you. Only the trashy channels are trash. I see.
> Your probably the same idiot that would say we shouldn't put your kid to death after (s)he killed a dozen other people.
Speaking of idiots, it's "you're." I'm not normally a pedant, but when someone this idiotic goes off, it's hard not to.
And do you realize that over 50% of the world doesn't feel that way? Or does "majority rules" only work when they already agree with you? Before you rant about the damn Frenchies or whatever, I'm an American. The most foreign place I've ever been is Windsor, Ontario (FYI, that's in Canada). I'm also not a Liberal.
Look, I'm pro-death penalty, but you're an idiot for trying that corrolation = causation bullshit.
There were many fewer cases of rape in the U.S. prior to 1500... Must be the land that caused it, time to leave. No, wait, crime rates have increased since Coca Cola was introduced, I bet THAT is what is making our children sinning heathens. Or maybe that computer you are using did it, surely no one died of unnatural causes before that. Perhaps it was something as innocuous as the invention of the transistor, all that electronic switching is messing with our brains. MICROWAVES! That's it! I can't believe you let your children near that deadly device!
TV didn't have all that trash on it before Reagan became president, it must be the Republicans trying to piss off their own people and mobilize them against the Democrats for allowing filth on TV such as that horrific spectacle known as childbirth. What a disgusting, sexually-based practice, anyone that does that sort of thing should be fined at least 20 grand.
Did you know that the murder rate was lower before Hawaii became a state? WE'D BETTER NUKE 'EM NOW!!! Or was that Alaska? Tell W to do them both, just to be sure we are "safe."
> and God [...] is the only one to get to say what is acceptable for man to do
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON??? Just because YOU are foolish enough to believe in big mean fairies in the sky, it does not mean you have the right to force that idiocy on the rest of us. _I_ AM THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS TO SAY WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR ME TO DO!
The police try claim they have more rights than the rest of us and can judge what is acceptable for man to do. Do you call them sinners or the antichrist because of it?
> you absolutely have zero right to force your bullshit into our houses.
Did you think before posting that?
You have zero right to force your religious bullshit into my house.
You have zero right to force me to accept your definition of offensive or indecent.
You have zero right to force me to watch the 700 Club.
Yet you (not explicitly "you") do.
OTOH, I could just change the channel. WHY CAN'T YOU LEARN HOW TO CHANGE THE CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING?!?!?!
Same here! Except I have a slightly different approach. I keep an open mind instead of believing everything that comes out of the TV, nor do I sit through programs I don't like just because "nothing else is on."
People telling others to not watch, or those who are uppity about the fact that they don't own a TV really need to get over themselves (I noticed you didn't tell anyone they should throw their TV away - thank you). There is intelligent material on the TV but you have to search for it, sometimes pretty hard.
As for "pushing the envelope," I disagree. I believe TV was just too restrictive before and it's starting to become more open. HOWEVER, just like booms & busts in economics, when a thing is first opened up (or in this case, regulations loosened) people go a bit wild with it. That's why we've got so much violence & crap, because it's a relatively new "feature." I believe that it will start to swing the other way, once people aren't impressed any more, and the content will be less offensive (to you and others who find images offensive -- I don't, but can understand how you would) in general.
I'm not telling you that TV is a good thing, but don't dismiss it out of hand as complete drivel: it isn't... completely... as of yet.
How about a more self-centered approach (that does not reflect my own feelings)? I hate my life & "turning on & tuning out" helps me forget how much I want to kill myself. Kind of like drugs. Of course, I think most of them should be legal as well, so it's a flaky point if you disagree.
> It does not, to my knowledge, show speciation, which is the creation of a new species due to evolution
One bacterial colony splits to form two groups of bacteria that start off identical. One is picked up by its 'God' -- let's call it the sole of my shoe. I get on a bike & ride a few miles before wiping the entire population off my shoe into the grass. Each of these two groups, given sufficiently large distances, will be affected by different factors, the "weak" ones killed off in different ways at different times & the "Stronger" ones multiply in both groups. Do you think, after quite a few generations and varying stimuli, that the remaining bacteria in their respective colonies will be the same?
> Oh, and by the way, it looks like you forgot to use the "Post Anonymously" option this time.
That is one good example of you getting the better of yourself right there. I responded to two messages of yours, neither one was anonymous. You are evidently mistaking me for someone else, making assumptions so you can jump on me for something I did not do. I guess it's the Troll High Ground.
> > > this sort of ignorance of the highest magnitude - not realising that China, the world's largest communist country, and India, the world's largest democracy, are two seperate countries
That is a nontruth, as he never hinted in the slightest that China & India were the same country. You took his statement and added things that weren't there so you could attack him. THAT is what I am referring to, oh obviously less-wise one.
> Gore's grade point average in school was even worse than President Bush's
I don't compare GPAs of politicians. Even more importantly, GPA is not a measure of intelligence. I know some brilliant C students. I know some morons who got "A"s. GPA measures how well someone can perform under one particular method of teaching, and it is not useful as a universal (or even country-wide) scale.
> India isn't China and it isn't guilty of brutalising Tibet or any of the other things that the AC did deign to mention
You are the only one that brought up Tibet because it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I agree with your position, but to bring it up is to try emotionalizing the issue with facts that don't apply in the slightest. You seem to be grasping at straws to make him look like an ignorant American, but he is not (ignorant, I mean, he may be American) AFAICT. Most of us know why many individuals don't want to trade with India... BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING OUR JOBS (US POV) -- in case you hadn't noticed, that's been pretty big news for the last year (at least to the people who generally read/.).
He must have assumed that the average person reading his post would understand that and put 2 & 2 together. I guess you're not the average person though. You should ask him to spell every fucking thing out for you in the future, since you can't make a leap of logic without the temptation to just insult the speaker because he lives in (up until recently, at least) a more successful country.
> But as much as I can point to all these uninformed religous people, you can just as easily point to all the uninformed people that spout the latest pseudo-scientific "finding" they read in People magazine without the slightest understanding of it's true meaning.
Those people don't claim you will suffer an eternity of fire & "gnashing of teeth" or that you are inherently evil if you don't believe them.
Slashdot Mirror
> You either believe, and are biased, or don't believe, and are biased.
So you are saying that there is no possibility of ever having a nonbiased conversation on religion?
> On the other hand, no one believes in God without good reason
Such as, "my parents believed, and I respect them, so I will too." I believe there are plenty of people who do it without good reason; "good" being the key word there. They may have bad reasons too.
> except the part about Jesus being dead
Oh, really? Where does he live? Pennsylvania? That's a stupid statement, if you seriously think he's alive, you're not as smart as I thought. Believing in God is one thing. Believing someone lived for 2000 years is lunacy.
> so either me or the Hindu is wrong and I assert that the Hindu is wrong.
And I do not, so basing your arguments on the premise that yours is the only true god is logically wrong, because I and the majority of the world do not start from the same premise. Therefore, "why not" is not a good reason to believe.
> I'm not sure I would use the word "sacred" about the Bible, it is after all, only a vehicle for God's word, not the word itself
Okay, good, at least you don't take it ALL verbatim. The question then is, what is literal & what isn't? Jonah & Job are stories, but Jesus rose from the dead and he's still alive today? That's the truth?
Oh well, you know you aren't going to convert me and I'm not going to change your opinions, so I'll stop now. Vaya con Dios.
> two populations having different characteristics does not make them absolutely new species.
The longer they are apart, the more different characteristics can crop up, the more different they become. After 5,000 generations, it is very possible for the two groups to be sexually incompatible.
As far as your reference to your other post, I will not take biased surmisings by CHRISTIANS as proof of God's existence. There IS NO PROOF for the resurrection of Jesus. You have none. Saying there is "compelling evidence" is a far cry from having any at all, which you do not. Ergo, BUNK!
His reply seemed pretty decent: You're making the extraordinary claims, the burden of proof is on you to prove positive (you can't prove a negative) and you can't cherrypick what's literal and what's not (at least, within the same book -- I can believe that's true between OT & NT or different books), and selectively doubting science is unreasonable.
> If you believe in a god, why not the One God, Lord of hosts? Praying to another if you believe in God would be to claim the the Lord was not all powerful and is obviously a sin.
If you believe in any gods, why not the great Vishnu? Praying to a non-Hindu god is obviously a sin! ATTENTION ALL CHRISTIANS: Saying something does not make it true. I know it's common practice, but it doesn't convince anyone else. The important bit, though, is that I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD. What if I really do want to worship money. Seems silly, but so does worshipping an invisible pink unicorn... err, God. BUNK!
> > > it is sinful to indulge yourself, to the exclusion of God
So when having sex, make sure you have sex with God. (j/k, I know what you meant) Saying something is true (or sinful) does not make it a fact (or sin). BUNK!
> > > [prove] that it was meant literally, which you must do say it is "bunk"
Since everything in the Bible is stories, there is no way to prove definitively that any of it is bunk. Conversely, you can't prove any of it true, either. Considering how little evidence there is to support much of it, chances are pretty good... BUNK!
> I've only been a Christian for a year
Yet you still think you are qualified to "teach" us about your religion when you haven't even studied your own sacred text to the fullest?
> All you have to do is gracefully accept his sacrifice and confess your sins.
Kill whoever you want: as long as you confess, you'll be saved. But if one is brash enough to live a good life without talking to a 2000-year dead guy, well, you're going to hell!
Bunk, bunk, bunk, all of it. That said, congratulations on your choice to be a Christian. I tried it for a while, not my thing. Don't let people like me affect your choice (I don't seriously think I am), but try to think about things too. Just because "the Bible sez so," it's not necessarily fact. In fact, most of it specifically isn't. Read through the O.T., ALL OF IT and find passages that support whatever premise you are going for. But then, look at all the chapters around that and make sure you follow those exactly as well. The stuff around the most famous homosexuality quote (in Deuteronomy, I believe) is pretty harsh.
You'll be killing many of your wives (some of whom may be your dead brothers' widows you were forced to take in) and sacrificing children (why would God need proof from you that you love him, if he's all knowing?) in no time flat.
I was being sarcastic, I know there is no way for slavery to return in our current state. I was relying on that fact to make the point to the AC that just because 51% of the people vote yes on something it does not automatically make it right or constitutional.
> we have steps to protect from "tyranny of the majority".
Which is exactly my point. Censoring content is another (albeit much tamer) form of tyrrany of the majority. Disallowing me from saying something I want just because it is broadcast on radio waves instead of just sound waves is against free speech.
> They then let that addiction get to their kids and screw up their lives, too
I understand what you were trying to say, and I'm saying it was probably being RAPED that screwed up their lives, not the porn. Almost all kids see some porn. Sure, if they see a ton of it, that may be a bad thing, but I think the molestation likely played a bigger role. How's that for clear?
> I see a terrorist and their supporters and call it like I see it: They ARE whacko, sick, crazy, insane, un-loving, hating bastards - you should be ashamed for even symathizing with their *plight*.
I see an American and his supporters and call it like I see it: They are whacko, oppressive, warmongering, hating bastards for invading my country -- you should be ashamed for sympathizing with them, only 3,000 of their people were killed, and we didn't even do it!
See how easy it is to make someone sound like a criminal?
> Tell me one basic Christian belief which is bunk.
Jesus died for our sins...
Then came back to life...
And he'll come back again to judge us all.
Life is a gift from God.
Working on Sunday (or Saturday for those who can read & comprehend slightly better) is a sin.
Praying to someone or something other than the Christian God will land you in hell.
Being in love with a man will land you in hell. Well, that's not an original belief, but they sure seem to think that now.
> there is nothing wrong with people trying to convince the government that some things should not air over the *free* channels
Freedom of speech, or press. Who decides what those things are? YOU? Christians? The government itself?
> I do not ally myself with their abortion and drug policies.
Freedom to choose for yourself and take responsibility for those choices is one of the hallmarks of Libertarianism. That doesn't mean "freedom to choose for yourself, except when I don't like what you are choosing to do." (Please don't go into "abortion is 'choosing' for the child" argument, it's bullshit and not the point)
> The general homosexual agenda hurts real families
Baseless attacks wanting to remove freedom to choose for yourself. How is me getting a blowjob from a guy instead of a girl affecting you or your family? (I'm not gay, BTW) IT ONLY HURTS FAMILIES WHO CAN'T DEAL WITH OTHER PEOPLE CHOOSING THEIR OWN LIFESTYLES. The Christian agenda hurts homosexual families. How are these statements so different to you? Because you are on one side of it.
> The environmentalist agendas hurt American people [in] an effort to get the US to be slave to the world's demands.
Attributing to malice what can be explained by media-generated fear and general stupidity (really, environmentalists spread the FUD themselves, but the point is the same) -- yeah, I don't like Libertarian enviro policy either, but I'm not the one to say it's wrong. I just disagree: I don't say that they shouldn't be able to spread their beliefs.
> Most people can tell the difference between real life and television.
So we have to cater to the most unstable common denominator because it's "most" and not "everyone?"
> the sex on TV is "real" - you can't fake the nudity, touching, etc. of sex.
So? That's not an argument against having it aired, that's just a clarification. Even if news anchors were engaging in sex while reporting the news, it does not automatically mean that it is inherently bad or evil. Really, you CAN fake it with CG, but again, not the point.
What this all leads up to is this:
> I am a mostly Libertarian-thinking
HOW in the hell can you claim that? Most of the things you mention are the complete opposite of Libertarian ideals. What DO you agree with them (us) about? Isolationist foreign policy? Tax policy -- where does the FCC's budget to censor come from?
> I don't think I've seen this Herbal Essences commercial, but I suspect we're talking naked/semi-naked people here. Hardly damaging the child.
You don't know the half of it. There is no nudity shown, not even a single peep of a breast. The offensive material he refers to is a woman washing her hair & moaning with pleasure... "yes, yes, YESS!"
> Both of them were sexually active by the time they were 8 years old (I am certain the uncle abused them, too)
You mention that in passing as if it weren't the PRIMARY reason! No, it's not the fault of the adult who fucked up their lives, it's because their parents looked at porn from time to time. Do you think these kids would have been closer to normal if their parents didn't look at porn, all else the same?
> Wait a minute you do believe in one man one vote don't you?
Oh, so if a bill on allowing slavery again passes, it is constitutional because the majority wanted it (just go with it, I know the majority does NOT, in fact, want that). Thanks for that insight.
Duh, the sig. Sorry for my ignorance.
Is this a misplaced reply or am I missing some relevant and possibly insightful analogy?
> One day you will realize that there is NOTHING to watch but trash
/., where the info/trash ratio is only slightly higher, depending on who you ask. You are entirely wrong. The Discovery channel is not trash, the History channel has all kinds of good stuff. Oh, but you didn't mean the GOOD channels, did you. Only the trashy channels are trash. I see.
So you come to
> Your probably the same idiot that would say we shouldn't put your kid to death after (s)he killed a dozen other people.
Speaking of idiots, it's "you're." I'm not normally a pedant, but when someone this idiotic goes off, it's hard not to.
And do you realize that over 50% of the world doesn't feel that way? Or does "majority rules" only work when they already agree with you? Before you rant about the damn Frenchies or whatever, I'm an American. The most foreign place I've ever been is Windsor, Ontario (FYI, that's in Canada). I'm also not a Liberal.
Look, I'm pro-death penalty, but you're an idiot for trying that corrolation = causation bullshit.
There were many fewer cases of rape in the U.S. prior to 1500... Must be the land that caused it, time to leave. No, wait, crime rates have increased since Coca Cola was introduced, I bet THAT is what is making our children sinning heathens. Or maybe that computer you are using did it, surely no one died of unnatural causes before that. Perhaps it was something as innocuous as the invention of the transistor, all that electronic switching is messing with our brains. MICROWAVES! That's it! I can't believe you let your children near that deadly device!
TV didn't have all that trash on it before Reagan became president, it must be the Republicans trying to piss off their own people and mobilize them against the Democrats for allowing filth on TV such as that horrific spectacle known as childbirth. What a disgusting, sexually-based practice, anyone that does that sort of thing should be fined at least 20 grand.
Did you know that the murder rate was lower before Hawaii became a state? WE'D BETTER NUKE 'EM NOW!!! Or was that Alaska? Tell W to do them both, just to be sure we are "safe."
> and God [...] is the only one to get to say what is acceptable for man to do
WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU ON??? Just because YOU are foolish enough to believe in big mean fairies in the sky, it does not mean you have the right to force that idiocy on the rest of us. _I_ AM THE ONLY ONE WHO GETS TO SAY WHAT IS ACCEPTABLE FOR ME TO DO!
The police try claim they have more rights than the rest of us and can judge what is acceptable for man to do. Do you call them sinners or the antichrist because of it?
> you absolutely have zero right to force your bullshit into our houses.
Did you think before posting that?
You have zero right to force your religious bullshit into my house.
You have zero right to force me to accept your definition of offensive or indecent.
You have zero right to force me to watch the 700 Club.
Yet you (not explicitly "you") do.
OTOH, I could just change the channel. WHY CAN'T YOU LEARN HOW TO CHANGE THE CHANNEL IF YOU DON'T LIKE SOMETHING?!?!?!
> I choose not to be programmed by it.
Same here! Except I have a slightly different approach. I keep an open mind instead of believing everything that comes out of the TV, nor do I sit through programs I don't like just because "nothing else is on."
People telling others to not watch, or those who are uppity about the fact that they don't own a TV really need to get over themselves (I noticed you didn't tell anyone they should throw their TV away - thank you). There is intelligent material on the TV but you have to search for it, sometimes pretty hard.
As for "pushing the envelope," I disagree. I believe TV was just too restrictive before and it's starting to become more open. HOWEVER, just like booms & busts in economics, when a thing is first opened up (or in this case, regulations loosened) people go a bit wild with it. That's why we've got so much violence & crap, because it's a relatively new "feature." I believe that it will start to swing the other way, once people aren't impressed any more, and the content will be less offensive (to you and others who find images offensive -- I don't, but can understand how you would) in general.
I'm not telling you that TV is a good thing, but don't dismiss it out of hand as complete drivel: it isn't... completely... as of yet.
How about a more self-centered approach (that does not reflect my own feelings)? I hate my life & "turning on & tuning out" helps me forget how much I want to kill myself. Kind of like drugs. Of course, I think most of them should be legal as well, so it's a flaky point if you disagree.
> It does not, to my knowledge, show speciation, which is the creation of a new species due to evolution
One bacterial colony splits to form two groups of bacteria that start off identical. One is picked up by its 'God' -- let's call it the sole of my shoe. I get on a bike & ride a few miles before wiping the entire population off my shoe into the grass. Each of these two groups, given sufficiently large distances, will be affected by different factors, the "weak" ones killed off in different ways at different times & the "Stronger" ones multiply in both groups. Do you think, after quite a few generations and varying stimuli, that the remaining bacteria in their respective colonies will be the same?
> Oh, and by the way, it looks like you forgot to use the "Post Anonymously" option this time.
That is one good example of you getting the better of yourself right there. I responded to two messages of yours, neither one was anonymous. You are evidently mistaking me for someone else, making assumptions so you can jump on me for something I did not do. I guess it's the Troll High Ground.
> > > this sort of ignorance of the highest magnitude - not realising that China, the world's largest communist country, and India, the world's largest democracy, are two seperate countries
That is a nontruth, as he never hinted in the slightest that China & India were the same country. You took his statement and added things that weren't there so you could attack him. THAT is what I am referring to, oh obviously less-wise one.
> Gore's grade point average in school was even worse than President Bush's
I don't compare GPAs of politicians. Even more importantly, GPA is not a measure of intelligence. I know some brilliant C students. I know some morons who got "A"s. GPA measures how well someone can perform under one particular method of teaching, and it is not useful as a universal (or even country-wide) scale.
Let me refine my comments a bit. The OP DID mention Tibet, but not that India was brutalizing them.
> Let's boycott coca cola then?
Coca-Cola brutalised Tibetans! I HAD NO IDEA!!!
You've got some cajones calling someone a fool after you start ranting nonsensically about things that aren't true.
> India isn't China and it isn't guilty of brutalising Tibet or any of the other things that the AC did deign to mention
/.).
You are the only one that brought up Tibet because it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I agree with your position, but to bring it up is to try emotionalizing the issue with facts that don't apply in the slightest. You seem to be grasping at straws to make him look like an ignorant American, but he is not (ignorant, I mean, he may be American) AFAICT. Most of us know why many individuals don't want to trade with India... BECAUSE THEY ARE TAKING OUR JOBS (US POV) -- in case you hadn't noticed, that's been pretty big news for the last year (at least to the people who generally read
He must have assumed that the average person reading his post would understand that and put 2 & 2 together. I guess you're not the average person though. You should ask him to spell every fucking thing out for you in the future, since you can't make a leap of logic without the temptation to just insult the speaker because he lives in (up until recently, at least) a more successful country.
> But as much as I can point to all these uninformed religous people, you can just as easily point to all the uninformed people that spout the latest pseudo-scientific "finding" they read in People magazine without the slightest understanding of it's true meaning.
Those people don't claim you will suffer an eternity of fire & "gnashing of teeth" or that you are inherently evil if you don't believe them.
> How would you know that student #1234 at College U. was student #5678 at Hometown High?
Social Security Number.