The most racist thing I've ever heard, were the liberals whining about black people's "plight", making excuses for the bad behavior being "cultural". It is clearly the most bigoted viewpoint, and it isn't coming from "Tea Baggers", it is coming from the left. And some of the worst, is coming the black/african left. These people are poverty pimps and race baiters who DO NOT WANT a successful Black (see Ben Carson character assassination).
When success is rewarded with hateful words like "Uncle Tom", and "Race Traitor" you can squarely call it "racism". There is no greater racist than those that DO NOT believe black people can be smart, intelligent and successful.
But, instead of taking a close look at the policies that are designed to hold black people captive (slavery??) inside the invisible cages and to be ruled by their plantation masters (voting 80% DNC), we have people calling the wrong side "racist".
The real Racism are those that insist that black people cannot be successful, without a handout.
There is no difference. People are also searching for "proof" of God, and theories and experiments to prove HIS nature. The fact is, dark matter is theoretical and unprovable, and may not exist at all, because our limited viewpoint cannot allow for us to discover this truth.
"They only reason physicists came up with it in the first place is because... they did experiments and observed space, and noticed that there was too much gravity compared to observable objects"
This is 100% true, but flawed logic. They assume that which is not in evidence. They created a "force" (god) to account for things they observed (miracles), that they couldn't explain otherwise. The only thing they have done is cloaked it in "sciency" language to mask the fact that they have done the very thing that they make fun of religious people of doing.
"We know that the universe itself is a finite age"
We don't "know" this. We assume it based on the facts we have as we understand them. There are a couple conditions (assumptions), 1) Time is a single dimension, 2) Dark Matter exists (we have no proof). There are good reasons to believe that time is not single dimension, which interestingly enough would negate the need for Dark Matter, while also explaining redshift light in a non-expanding universe that has always existed.
As humans, we assume things not in evidence, based on what we know. But if what we "know" is wrong, then our assumptions are likely to also be wrong.
By your example, we have NO good example of how people should behave. All humans are critically flawed, and therefore we should not act in any way other than how we want. Selfishness is the end result of your argumentative point. There is no perfection in the human condition. Period.
Of course, that is kind of the point in the Bible, if you can get beyond your own bigotry and ignorance, taking stories (literal or figurative) out of context and extrapolating your own flawed viewpoint out of them. Having read the whole book series of book, including the apocryphal, I see it for what it is, a tale of flawed people who need redemption.
Of course if you're perfect, you don't need redemption. And if you're not perfect, and don't want redemption because you like your flaws, well then you're part of the problem, and not a solution.
Physics has their own version of "God", it is called "dark matter". They believe it exists because this magical material is used to fill in the voids of all the problems they have with their current models. It has never been seen (thus "dark") they believe it exists (thus "matter") but they cannot confirm or deny it via scientific proof.
But since is is cloaked in "scientific" terminology, they count it as science, even though it clearly is not subject to the scientific method.
Such a limited view of justice, such that justice doesn't exist except your version of justice, which by definition isn't justice but revenge. Which is how you view others definitions of justice, and thus, is exactly what you typed here.
Simply put (because I realize you probably can't understand the above), your view of "god" is limited because you can't (don't) believe in one. Because you don't believe, it jades your viewpoint in such a way to support your view.
Here's a thought, any god that forces people to be "good" doesn't believe in free will. That makes one a dictator and evil. Benevolence allows choice, but holds people responsible for their choices(Justice). You have chosen, shouldn't you be responsible for your choice... for eternity? OR would you rather be forced to comply to doing things against your will, simply so you won't spend eternity being held responsible for your choice?
But then again, that is the whole liberal mindset, freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want and avoid consequences at whatever cost. Blaming others for their own failures.
There is no excuse in modern educated society to being "ignorant". None. Even if you are ignorant, getting a computer connected to the internet should eliminate ignorance. Again, there is no excuse. If you have an email address, and a smart phone (as suggested by the Submission), you have no excuse to being ignorant.
I don't count ignorance as an excuse for anything any more. People choose to be ignorant because they spend too much time on silly things (pop culture) and not enough time paying attention to the world around them. Ignorance is bliss, it is easy, it is lazy.
It is very easy to take advantage of people who don't care.
Yes, they are. Unrestrained legalism isn't the virtue that you think it is. It is the means of tyranny uses to creep into our world. But you're okay with tyranny, as long as it is your kind of tyranny, and that is a pity.
Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis.
and
irregardless an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s
The problem isn't that it cost billions, the problem is that "average" people cannot accrue the benefit of that profit, directly. And this seems unfair to the "fairness police".
The issue is, that this liquidity has already saved billions of dollars because it is liquid. Nobody is complaining about the increased efficiency of the market (liquidity is efficiency). If you want to play this game, buy the equipment to play it. There are more fundamental issues with Stock Trading IMHO, that HFT is not one of them.
"I'm atheist, and 90% the people I know" Anecdotal evidence at best. Not reasonable assumption. It may be true, but it is still not a fact. Please be reasonable.;)
"I know nothing about that organization... and I don't care." You should. They are making Atheists (like yourself) look silly. Kind of like how Fred Phelps made Christians look like douchebags.
This is a "campaign" by this organization. They raised money, and stuck these signs all over the place. I find it completely hilarious that people would waste money on things that they protest does not exist. It is like saying "I'm raising money to prove Bigfoot doesn't exists."
And if you don't see the humor... and illogic.... of a group that professes to be based upon (United Coalition of Reason) "Reason" in spending money on advertising about something they don't believe it, then you're simply not reasonable. It is funny.
"Most Atheists" - Citation needed. While it may be true, that "most Atheists" are as you say, enough of them DO care about other people's beliefs to annoy the heck out people. And until they start protesting Islam, Buddhists, Jewish... they come across as anti-christian zealots.
Proselytizing Atheists! It is one of the funniest things I have ever seen!
Let me know when the same group put up signs denouncing Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster (or do they believe in those things? I don't know!)
It is a movement, even if you deny it. It is a religious, same as if a Church put up a billboard saying "Believe in Jesus" is religious. Like most Atheists, they don't reason very well, even though they claim to; "United Coalition of Reason" uh huh right
Theey are not based on reason or facts, they are based on careful interpretation of a religious text to fit your chosen point of view.
Even though the Buddhist texts are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy, the Buddhist laity is advised to limit themselves to one wife. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/wha...
In traditional Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
A custom among the Northern Californian Native Americans*, which was unique to them, is that of half-marriage and full-marriage.In a full marriage, two kinsmen represented the future bridegroom. After agreeing on a price, in accordance with the family’s wealth and social standing, the bridegroom – usually with his father’s help – would pay the bride’s family. http://www.weddingdetails.com/...
It appears, that your own bigotry is showing. Most societies marriage was between man and woman. In many of the others plural marriage was also allowed, but it was almost exclusively Heterosexual.
I put "gay" in quotes, because the original meaning "happy" no longer applies. And having seen my brother's friends (he was homosexual) "gay" meaning happy was laughable. Most of them were miserable sorts.
Do you not understand that there are very sound and well established, science based medical reasons why a union between close family members should be banned?
Is marriage about sex, or status in society or benefits granted by governments. The moment you decide on one, let me know. Because you don't need "marriage" for any or all of those.;) But logic be damned we want to re-define "marriage" so that we can have our sex, status and most importantly benefits!
Atheists don't hate any more or less than Christians or any other human group does. There are, however, plenty of Atheist haters.
I define myself by what I am, not what I am not. I am not a lot of things. Atheists define themselves by what they are not, and thus, it is a religious belief system.;) Sorry, but the fake Atheist religious movement has lied to you.
Prop Eight defined marriage (legal) as between a man and a woman. This has been the historic case for thousands of years for all but a few examples. And most of the exceptions were Polygamists (and occasional Polyandrous). From a Historical perspective, gay "marriage" is something that didn't exists until very recently. Saying society is bigoted because of this long standing tradition (one man, one woman) is simply nothing more than projection.
1) The purposes of marriage and acceptance of that was for Progeny. Gay people cannot procreate (adoption, artificial and out of wedlock sexual relations not withstanding)
2) Benefits that were granted by government was to allow for Families (biologically impossible with gays) to have societal support for raising children and wealth (asset) transfers to the children.
Neither of those two things are "bigoted".
As a Libertarian, I realize that "gay" people are pushing the historical boundries for marriage apart. But I rather doubt they realize the full extent these changes will eventually take. Do they support Polygamy or other plural marriages? If not, does that make them bigoted? How about letting me "marry" my daughter to gain the government benefits granted to gay people for the transfer of wealth and other assets (retirement benefits) to her generation? If not, is that bigoted?
The best thing we can do is get Government out of the "marriage" business (a left over of religion in the first place) and just deal with people as individuals. The smallest minority is that of the individual. IF government doesn't grant the same rights and privileges to the individual as it does to the most discriminated group, then we have already lost our liberties to Group Politics.
People use the word "hate" and really don't understand what it means. But then again, why do people like yourself "Hate" people for simply belonging to a religion?
You know what the scary part is, people like you, in power, are just as likely to round up certain religions, like China does with Falung Gong, and put them into detention camps or worse, execute them. Atheism as a State religion has committed far greater atrocities than all other religions combined, including Muslims. And claiming that Atheism isn't a religion is farcical at best. True atheists wouldn't care about fairytales anymore than I care about people who believe in flying pink unicorns, yet many of them are as extremely hate and rage filled passionate about their "beliefs" as Fred Phelps was about his. In fact, I dare say there are more of the rate hate filled Atheists than there were of Fred Phelps, but it is more acceptable and therefore tolerated and excused. The fact that almost nobody excused Fred Phelps is what gave him such notoriety; it was outlandish.
But somehow, I doubt my reasoning will mean a whole bunch to anyone who gets so emotional about what someone else believes.
Odd, most libertarians I know understand that we need to defend the weakest of our society from those that would abuse that weakness. Strength is not for taking advantage of others, but rather should be used to help those that cannot do for themselves. Socialists and Progressives use the state to force their beliefs on others, often using Courts to do their bidding by creating new classes of people to divide the people up into group politics.
Just remember this, the smallest minority is the individual. And groups do not have a right to impose upon the rights of the individual.
And then there is the case of the SF State Representative that was a staunch advocate of gun control, who was just caught trying to bring all sorts of guns, and rocket launchers into the state, from Filipino Muslim Extremists (terrorists) It would be funny if it weren't so fucked up.
Slashdot Mirror
The most racist thing I've ever heard, were the liberals whining about black people's "plight", making excuses for the bad behavior being "cultural". It is clearly the most bigoted viewpoint, and it isn't coming from "Tea Baggers", it is coming from the left. And some of the worst, is coming the black/african left. These people are poverty pimps and race baiters who DO NOT WANT a successful Black (see Ben Carson character assassination).
When success is rewarded with hateful words like "Uncle Tom", and "Race Traitor" you can squarely call it "racism". There is no greater racist than those that DO NOT believe black people can be smart, intelligent and successful.
But, instead of taking a close look at the policies that are designed to hold black people captive (slavery??) inside the invisible cages and to be ruled by their plantation masters (voting 80% DNC), we have people calling the wrong side "racist".
The real Racism are those that insist that black people cannot be successful, without a handout.
There is no difference. People are also searching for "proof" of God, and theories and experiments to prove HIS nature. The fact is, dark matter is theoretical and unprovable, and may not exist at all, because our limited viewpoint cannot allow for us to discover this truth.
"They only reason physicists came up with it in the first place is because... they did experiments and observed space, and noticed that there was too much gravity compared to observable objects"
This is 100% true, but flawed logic. They assume that which is not in evidence. They created a "force" (god) to account for things they observed (miracles), that they couldn't explain otherwise. The only thing they have done is cloaked it in "sciency" language to mask the fact that they have done the very thing that they make fun of religious people of doing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Assuming "Time" is a single dimension. We assume it, because that is what we can observe from our limited viewpoint. Time may not be single dimension.
"We know that the universe itself is a finite age"
We don't "know" this. We assume it based on the facts we have as we understand them. There are a couple conditions (assumptions), 1) Time is a single dimension, 2) Dark Matter exists (we have no proof). There are good reasons to believe that time is not single dimension, which interestingly enough would negate the need for Dark Matter, while also explaining redshift light in a non-expanding universe that has always existed.
As humans, we assume things not in evidence, based on what we know. But if what we "know" is wrong, then our assumptions are likely to also be wrong.
By your example, we have NO good example of how people should behave. All humans are critically flawed, and therefore we should not act in any way other than how we want. Selfishness is the end result of your argumentative point. There is no perfection in the human condition. Period.
Of course, that is kind of the point in the Bible, if you can get beyond your own bigotry and ignorance, taking stories (literal or figurative) out of context and extrapolating your own flawed viewpoint out of them. Having read the whole book series of book, including the apocryphal, I see it for what it is, a tale of flawed people who need redemption.
Of course if you're perfect, you don't need redemption. And if you're not perfect, and don't want redemption because you like your flaws, well then you're part of the problem, and not a solution.
Physics has their own version of "God", it is called "dark matter". They believe it exists because this magical material is used to fill in the voids of all the problems they have with their current models. It has never been seen (thus "dark") they believe it exists (thus "matter") but they cannot confirm or deny it via scientific proof.
But since is is cloaked in "scientific" terminology, they count it as science, even though it clearly is not subject to the scientific method.
Such a limited view of justice, such that justice doesn't exist except your version of justice, which by definition isn't justice but revenge. Which is how you view others definitions of justice, and thus, is exactly what you typed here.
Simply put (because I realize you probably can't understand the above), your view of "god" is limited because you can't (don't) believe in one. Because you don't believe, it jades your viewpoint in such a way to support your view.
Here's a thought, any god that forces people to be "good" doesn't believe in free will. That makes one a dictator and evil. Benevolence allows choice, but holds people responsible for their choices(Justice). You have chosen, shouldn't you be responsible for your choice ... for eternity? OR would you rather be forced to comply to doing things against your will, simply so you won't spend eternity being held responsible for your choice?
But then again, that is the whole liberal mindset, freedom to do whatever you want, whenever you want and avoid consequences at whatever cost. Blaming others for their own failures.
Such Compassion from a liberal. Color me shocked.
"desperate, poor, and ignorant"
There is no excuse in modern educated society to being "ignorant". None. Even if you are ignorant, getting a computer connected to the internet should eliminate ignorance. Again, there is no excuse. If you have an email address, and a smart phone (as suggested by the Submission), you have no excuse to being ignorant.
I don't count ignorance as an excuse for anything any more. People choose to be ignorant because they spend too much time on silly things (pop culture) and not enough time paying attention to the world around them. Ignorance is bliss, it is easy, it is lazy.
It is very easy to take advantage of people who don't care.
Yes, they are. Unrestrained legalism isn't the virtue that you think it is. It is the means of tyranny uses to creep into our world. But you're okay with tyranny, as long as it is your kind of tyranny, and that is a pity.
Dictionary.com says it best ...
Usage note
Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis.
and
irregardless an erroneous word that, etymologically, means the exact opposite of what it is used to express, attested in non-standard writing from at least 1870s
My first Grammar Nazi post
irregardless
IS not a word. Stop using it. Thank you.
Coming soon!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
In other words some completely off topic response that points out the original person asking the question is either bad at grammar or can't spell.
See the post underneath this one QED
illicit
"Elicit". Unless you're asking how to break the law.
The problem isn't that it cost billions, the problem is that "average" people cannot accrue the benefit of that profit, directly. And this seems unfair to the "fairness police".
The issue is, that this liquidity has already saved billions of dollars because it is liquid. Nobody is complaining about the increased efficiency of the market (liquidity is efficiency). If you want to play this game, buy the equipment to play it. There are more fundamental issues with Stock Trading IMHO, that HFT is not one of them.
"I'm atheist, and 90% the people I know" Anecdotal evidence at best. Not reasonable assumption. It may be true, but it is still not a fact. Please be reasonable. ;)
"I know nothing about that organization ... and I don't care." You should. They are making Atheists (like yourself) look silly. Kind of like how Fred Phelps made Christians look like douchebags.
This is a "campaign" by this organization. They raised money, and stuck these signs all over the place. I find it completely hilarious that people would waste money on things that they protest does not exist. It is like saying "I'm raising money to prove Bigfoot doesn't exists."
And if you don't see the humor ... and illogic .... of a group that professes to be based upon (United Coalition of Reason) "Reason" in spending money on advertising about something they don't believe it, then you're simply not reasonable. It is funny.
"Most Atheists" - Citation needed. While it may be true, that "most Atheists" are as you say, enough of them DO care about other people's beliefs to annoy the heck out people. And until they start protesting Islam, Buddhists, Jewish ... they come across as anti-christian zealots.
http://unitedcor.org/images/bi...
Proselytizing Atheists! It is one of the funniest things I have ever seen!
Let me know when the same group put up signs denouncing Bigfoot and Loch Ness Monster (or do they believe in those things? I don't know!)
It is a movement, even if you deny it. It is a religious, same as if a Church put up a billboard saying "Believe in Jesus" is religious. Like most Atheists, they don't reason very well, even though they claim to; "United Coalition of Reason" uh huh right
Theey are not based on reason or facts, they are based on careful interpretation of a religious text to fit your chosen point of view.
Even though the Buddhist texts are silent on the subject of monogamy or polygamy, the Buddhist laity is advised to limit themselves to one wife.
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/wha...
By getting married you are not just getting a wife, you are getting your whole world.
http://www.jannah.org/sisters/...
In traditional Judaism, marriage is viewed as a contractual bond commanded by God in which a man and a woman come together to create a relationship in which God is directly involved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...
A custom among the Northern Californian Native Americans*, which was unique to them, is that of half-marriage and full-marriage.In a full marriage, two kinsmen represented the future bridegroom. After agreeing on a price, in accordance with the family’s wealth and social standing, the bridegroom – usually with his father’s help – would pay the bride’s family.
http://www.weddingdetails.com/...
It appears, that your own bigotry is showing. Most societies marriage was between man and woman. In many of the others plural marriage was also allowed, but it was almost exclusively Heterosexual.
I put "gay" in quotes, because the original meaning "happy" no longer applies. And having seen my brother's friends (he was homosexual) "gay" meaning happy was laughable. Most of them were miserable sorts.
Do you not understand that there are very sound and well established, science based medical reasons why a union between close family members should be banned?
Is marriage about sex, or status in society or benefits granted by governments. The moment you decide on one, let me know. Because you don't need "marriage" for any or all of those. ;) But logic be damned we want to re-define "marriage" so that we can have our sex, status and most importantly benefits!
But if a court says it is okay, then it must be okay. After all, men in black robes are smarter than the rest of us!
Atheists don't hate any more or less than Christians or any other human group does. There are, however, plenty of Atheist haters.
I define myself by what I am, not what I am not. I am not a lot of things. Atheists define themselves by what they are not, and thus, it is a religious belief system. ;) Sorry, but the fake Atheist religious movement has lied to you.
Prop Eight defined marriage (legal) as between a man and a woman. This has been the historic case for thousands of years for all but a few examples. And most of the exceptions were Polygamists (and occasional Polyandrous). From a Historical perspective, gay "marriage" is something that didn't exists until very recently. Saying society is bigoted because of this long standing tradition (one man, one woman) is simply nothing more than projection.
1) The purposes of marriage and acceptance of that was for Progeny. Gay people cannot procreate (adoption, artificial and out of wedlock sexual relations not withstanding)
2) Benefits that were granted by government was to allow for Families (biologically impossible with gays) to have societal support for raising children and wealth (asset) transfers to the children.
Neither of those two things are "bigoted".
As a Libertarian, I realize that "gay" people are pushing the historical boundries for marriage apart. But I rather doubt they realize the full extent these changes will eventually take. Do they support Polygamy or other plural marriages? If not, does that make them bigoted? How about letting me "marry" my daughter to gain the government benefits granted to gay people for the transfer of wealth and other assets (retirement benefits) to her generation? If not, is that bigoted?
The best thing we can do is get Government out of the "marriage" business (a left over of religion in the first place) and just deal with people as individuals. The smallest minority is that of the individual. IF government doesn't grant the same rights and privileges to the individual as it does to the most discriminated group, then we have already lost our liberties to Group Politics.
People use the word "hate" and really don't understand what it means. But then again, why do people like yourself "Hate" people for simply belonging to a religion?
You know what the scary part is, people like you, in power, are just as likely to round up certain religions, like China does with Falung Gong, and put them into detention camps or worse, execute them. Atheism as a State religion has committed far greater atrocities than all other religions combined, including Muslims. And claiming that Atheism isn't a religion is farcical at best. True atheists wouldn't care about fairytales anymore than I care about people who believe in flying pink unicorns, yet many of them are as extremely hate and rage filled passionate about their "beliefs" as Fred Phelps was about his. In fact, I dare say there are more of the rate hate filled Atheists than there were of Fred Phelps, but it is more acceptable and therefore tolerated and excused. The fact that almost nobody excused Fred Phelps is what gave him such notoriety; it was outlandish.
But somehow, I doubt my reasoning will mean a whole bunch to anyone who gets so emotional about what someone else believes.
Odd, most libertarians I know understand that we need to defend the weakest of our society from those that would abuse that weakness. Strength is not for taking advantage of others, but rather should be used to help those that cannot do for themselves. Socialists and Progressives use the state to force their beliefs on others, often using Courts to do their bidding by creating new classes of people to divide the people up into group politics.
Just remember this, the smallest minority is the individual. And groups do not have a right to impose upon the rights of the individual.
And then there is the case of the SF State Representative that was a staunch advocate of gun control, who was just caught trying to bring all sorts of guns, and rocket launchers into the state, from Filipino Muslim Extremists (terrorists) It would be funny if it weren't so fucked up.