I wasn't assuming anything, I was TROLLING, maybe you've heard of it? I didn't say anything about cracker-dude, I was insulting Republicans in general. Once one's karma reaches the cap, what else is one supposed to do with it but blow off steam by crassly insulting one's political opponents? Insulting religious nutjobs has gotten boring, Microsoft is passe these days, what else is there?
Seriously though, I may not agree totally with the old school "fiscally responsible states rights small Fed" Repubs, but at last they aren't Neocons. I wish the Paulies and Minarchists the best of luck kicking those criminals to the curb.
You wouldn't perchance be that certain talentless hack of a lawyer that NYCL has humiliated before, would you? Maybe you weren't cut out to be a lawyer, you know I hear KFC is hiring.
Really, what media are you watching? Because from where I'm sitting, Faux News and even CNN seem to do a lot of Republican ass kissing and a lot of Democrat bashing.
Got any proof the media is pro-Democrat? Because I think you are just repeating Faux News lies.
You see, back in those days, drugs... I mean warez were different. Nowadays you can catch all kinds of viruses from warez, and the money all goes into the pockets of terrorists and pedophiles. But back in the day they were just cool, and fun, and no one got hurt. Just say no to warez!
Please. Ask any libertarian about it and they say the slack in social programs will be taken up by charity. They do want a certain amount of social security, because of the whole security aspect of it. A system with no safety net is insecure, when things get bad people will eventually revolt and that is bad for business. Libertarians just want other people to pay for that net.
Saying people disagree over whether the government is a good ROI is oversimplifying. Most on the left feel it isn't, because we are spending too much on the military, farm subsidies, and corporate bailouts. Most on the right think its not because we are spending too much on the poor.
They want to keep the poor poor enough so that they will put up with low wages and poor working conditions, but not poor enough to revolt.
That is a phrase used as an ad hominem to try to discredit a particular point of view. Whenever you see someone use this phrase, it is a sure sign they have no better argument than appeal to emotion.
Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back.
Republicans are allowed to say they've changed, but not Democrats. Republicans love to point out Democrat's youthful indiscretions, so turnabout is fair play.
Markets need controls, as they have known failure modes such as imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities. Sharing of inventions & innovations are externalities and need to be encouraged through non market means.
Or will it be "General Protection Fault?" Find out Sunday-Sunday-SUNDAY! in the battle royal between these two seasoned warriors. We'll sell you the whole seat but you'll only need the EDGE!
Right, but I won't bow down to someone like that no matter how much power they have over me. I don't care what God thinks or what He proposes to do with me, he may deserve my love and worship by his rules, but not by mine. And no matter how powerful God may be, he isn't powerful enough to make me disbelieve my own rules and believe in his.
I understand what is meant by free will, but the concept is so absurd its difficult to take seriously. For will to truly be free, it would have to be as I described, where anything you imagine comes to be. Otherwise, its not really free.
The real difficulty I have with it is the idea that your will is an uncaused cause. That no matter what your experience, you could decide to do something or not based on nothing more than an internal will.
If free will is as you describe, your will can never learn anything because then it would be influenced by things outside itself, and it would not be an uncaused cause, and it would not be sensible to say that sin accrues based on one's will. Because you do not get to decide what experiences come your way, you do not get to decide what things you have the opportunity to learn, and therefore your will is subordinate to your life experiences which you never chose.
If your will is free without the possibility of fleem, why would your will not also be free without the possibility of sin?
The idea of an infinite being having a sense of right and wrong is ludicrous. Infinite means without limit. Every possibility exists within that which is infinite. Every decision has already been made within the infinite. Every decision is both right and wrong within the infinite. To say otherwise is to put human limits on the infinite, which is stupid.
Free will, eh? So you can just will things into existence? Neat. Free will is an illusion. Everything you decide upon is conditioned by your experiences, your will is not some uncaused cause, it is part of a chain of cause and effect. But even if free will were real, God could still allow us free will without allowing the possibility of sin. As an example, you can not will yourself to fleem, because fleem is not something you know about. Just as (in your world view) you can have free will and not will yourself to fleem, God could have created a world where sin was a null concept just like fleem is. The thing is, if I live life as a Christian, I have given up my own sense of right and wrong for an artificial one imposed on me by threat of punishment, and that is simply not something I am willing to do. I do not make my decisions based on what will get me rewards or get me out of punishments, I make my decisions on what I feel is right or wrong.
Yes, this is less insane. And the "suffering" in these systems is no lake of fire, simply the eternal knowledge that you have chosen to live without God's love, am I right?
Right. Well, there's still the whole "If you don't love me I will punish you infinitely for your finite sins" angle. That alone makes the Christian God batshit insane in my book.
Right. God left clear indications in a book which he neglected to make available to 99% of the population. Then he made light in transit from galaxies billions of light years away, buried dinosaur bones, futzed with radioactive decay, and did a bunch of other crap specifically to make it look like the world is billions of years old. But hey, he gave that book explaining it all in cryptic language to a few people in the Middle East, so all that lying and deception is okay.
I do not give in to terrorists. Someone who loved me wouldn't send me to eternal punishment for finite transgressions. An infinite and all powerful creator God can not desire anything, for being all powerful and infinite they have everything they could want before they want it.
I'm not an Atheist, I'm Agnostic. It's just that, if the Christians are correct out of all the myriad beliefs, I would rather go to hell than submit to an insane terrorist God, which is what the God of the Christians looks like to me, from their own description of him.
When will people realize that it is okay to be a young earth Creationist and still believe in science. The Darwinists have things mostly right, it's just that God created the Universe 6000 years ago and made it APPEAR to be much older. Time, as we observe it, is directly controlled by God and as such he can manipulate it to be anything He wills. Then fuck God. Fuck Him right in the ear. Because he's a sick fuck who won't allow his creations to perceive the truth about their origins, who deliberately set out to deceive us, and I will NEVER worship a sick son of a bitch like that.
is but ONE of many who develop such stuff. The exo-skeleton concept has been around for MANY years, just grab an old copy of Popular Science from the 1960's. The subject was "Man Amplifiers". Nothing to see here. Yeah, old news. I see that same subject of "Man Amplifiers" in my email every day.
Slashdot Mirror
I wasn't assuming anything, I was TROLLING, maybe you've heard of it? I didn't say anything about cracker-dude, I was insulting Republicans in general. Once one's karma reaches the cap, what else is one supposed to do with it but blow off steam by crassly insulting one's political opponents? Insulting religious nutjobs has gotten boring, Microsoft is passe these days, what else is there?
Seriously though, I may not agree totally with the old school "fiscally responsible states rights small Fed" Repubs, but at last they aren't Neocons. I wish the Paulies and Minarchists the best of luck kicking those criminals to the curb.
Cry more, n00b.
Bullshit, look at the moderation of comments here. He is not correct, and if this guy had been a Democrat, the situation would have been similar.
You wouldn't perchance be that certain talentless hack of a lawyer that NYCL has humiliated before, would you? Maybe you weren't cut out to be a lawyer, you know I hear KFC is hiring.
It's from the same damn study you mentioned! I guess you didn't read that part though.
Journalists do not control the media. Editors and owners do, and they are overwhelmingly Republican.
Really, what media are you watching? Because from where I'm sitting, Faux News and even CNN seem to do a lot of Republican ass kissing and a lot of Democrat bashing.
Got any proof the media is pro-Democrat? Because I think you are just repeating Faux News lies.
You see, back in those days, drugs... I mean warez were different. Nowadays you can catch all kinds of viruses from warez, and the money all goes into the pockets of terrorists and pedophiles. But back in the day they were just cool, and fun, and no one got hurt. Just say no to warez!
Please. Ask any libertarian about it and they say the slack in social programs will be taken up by charity. They do want a certain amount of social security, because of the whole security aspect of it. A system with no safety net is insecure, when things get bad people will eventually revolt and that is bad for business. Libertarians just want other people to pay for that net.
Saying people disagree over whether the government is a good ROI is oversimplifying. Most on the left feel it isn't, because we are spending too much on the military, farm subsidies, and corporate bailouts. Most on the right think its not because we are spending too much on the poor.
They want to keep the poor poor enough so that they will put up with low wages and poor working conditions, but not poor enough to revolt.
There is no Slashdot Hivemind.
That is a phrase used as an ad hominem to try to discredit a particular point of view. Whenever you see someone use this phrase, it is a sure sign they have no better argument than appeal to emotion.
Double standard. Republicans bash democrats endlessly, but whine about it whenever anyone hits back.
Republicans are allowed to say they've changed, but not Democrats. Republicans love to point out Democrat's youthful indiscretions, so turnabout is fair play.
Markets need controls, as they have known failure modes such as imbalance of information, natural monopoly, and externalities. Sharing of inventions & innovations are externalities and need to be encouraged through non market means.
Do as I say or you hate America and support the terrorists.
Seriously, I haven't gotten enough flamebait moderation recently. Help me out here.
Republicans and Democrats are both for protecting the interests of big money. Can you name any Republicans advocating for copyright reform?
Do as I say, not as I do.
Or will it be "General Protection Fault?" Find out Sunday-Sunday-SUNDAY! in the battle royal between these two seasoned warriors. We'll sell you the whole seat but you'll only need the EDGE!
Right, but I won't bow down to someone like that no matter how much power they have over me. I don't care what God thinks or what He proposes to do with me, he may deserve my love and worship by his rules, but not by mine. And no matter how powerful God may be, he isn't powerful enough to make me disbelieve my own rules and believe in his.
I understand what is meant by free will, but the concept is so absurd its difficult to take seriously. For will to truly be free, it would have to be as I described, where anything you imagine comes to be. Otherwise, its not really free.
The real difficulty I have with it is the idea that your will is an uncaused cause. That no matter what your experience, you could decide to do something or not based on nothing more than an internal will.
If free will is as you describe, your will can never learn anything because then it would be influenced by things outside itself, and it would not be an uncaused cause, and it would not be sensible to say that sin accrues based on one's will. Because you do not get to decide what experiences come your way, you do not get to decide what things you have the opportunity to learn, and therefore your will is subordinate to your life experiences which you never chose.
If your will is free without the possibility of fleem, why would your will not also be free without the possibility of sin?
The idea of an infinite being having a sense of right and wrong is ludicrous. Infinite means without limit. Every possibility exists within that which is infinite. Every decision has already been made within the infinite. Every decision is both right and wrong within the infinite. To say otherwise is to put human limits on the infinite, which is stupid.
Free will, eh? So you can just will things into existence? Neat. Free will is an illusion. Everything you decide upon is conditioned by your experiences, your will is not some uncaused cause, it is part of a chain of cause and effect.
But even if free will were real, God could still allow us free will without allowing the possibility of sin. As an example, you can not will yourself to fleem, because fleem is not something you know about. Just as (in your world view) you can have free will and not will yourself to fleem, God could have created a world where sin was a null concept just like fleem is.
The thing is, if I live life as a Christian, I have given up my own sense of right and wrong for an artificial one imposed on me by threat of punishment, and that is simply not something I am willing to do. I do not make my decisions based on what will get me rewards or get me out of punishments, I make my decisions on what I feel is right or wrong.
Yes, this is less insane. And the "suffering" in these systems is no lake of fire, simply the eternal knowledge that you have chosen to live without God's love, am I right?
Right. Well, there's still the whole "If you don't love me I will punish you infinitely for your finite sins" angle. That alone makes the Christian God batshit insane in my book.
Would you please stop modding Planesdragon down for defending his beliefs? That's just crass.
Right. God left clear indications in a book which he neglected to make available to 99% of the population. Then he made light in transit from galaxies billions of light years away, buried dinosaur bones, futzed with radioactive decay, and did a bunch of other crap specifically to make it look like the world is billions of years old. But hey, he gave that book explaining it all in cryptic language to a few people in the Middle East, so all that lying and deception is okay.
I do not give in to terrorists. Someone who loved me wouldn't send me to eternal punishment for finite transgressions. An infinite and all powerful creator God can not desire anything, for being all powerful and infinite they have everything they could want before they want it.
I'm not an Atheist, I'm Agnostic. It's just that, if the Christians are correct out of all the myriad beliefs, I would rather go to hell than submit to an insane terrorist God, which is what the God of the Christians looks like to me, from their own description of him.
The exo-skeleton concept has been around for
MANY years, just grab an old copy of Popular
Science from the 1960's. The subject was
"Man Amplifiers". Nothing to see here. Yeah, old news. I see that same subject of "Man Amplifiers" in my email every day.