Stop with the likely. The claim was that people, on average, commit 3 felonies per day.
Provide an actual citation, or STFU.
Likely, your mama didn't love you. Likely, women laugh at the small size of your penis. Likely, you have a hard time holding a job because you're so obnoxious. Likely, you try to tell people how (or not) to express themselves online because your landlady handcuffs you to the toilet at night. Likely, you have an inferiority complex that forces you to lash out at people you don't even know online to make up for that emptiness inside. Likely, I would provide citations if you hadn't been such a douchebag about it.
I'm not sure why you had to bring your alma mater into this (BTW, where is STFU anyway?)
I doubt it. People like to bitch but the 50 States together are a superpower. Separately they're just little countries. The problem is that the art of compromise seems to be lost. No one wants to meet in the middle anymore. We need some leadership that knows how to reach across these boundaries but it appears to be at least four years out and maybe more. It's gonna be a rough ride in the meantime.
Unfortunately, those who could compromise have forgotten an important maxim -- "You know a compromise is a good one when *neither* side is happy." Since certain folks won't compromise when they're offered something like 80% of what they want, well that's how we got here.
Hmm...who was it that stonewalled at every turn? Who was it who wouldn't or couldn't even *discuss* compromise -- even to the detriment of the country? So hard to remember. Maybe someone could help me out with that?
Mitt was a dreadful choice for a conservative presidential candidate.
A dreadful choice for the Republican Party indeed as Ritt Momney is an actual conservative. Those folks who call themselves "conservative" are anything but. They are radical reactionaries bordering on fascism who want nothing more than a return to the GIlded Age with Jim Crow, monopolistic industries, Wells Fargo as union (and head) busters, women without the vote, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and on and on and on.
If these folks want to lie to themselves and call themselves "conservative," fine. But when they lie to me, I'm going to call them on it.
What, IMHO, will eventually happen is that the non-batshit crazy Republicans will join the Democratic Party and the Left will end up in the Green Party or something similar. This will leave the reactionaries without a base and they will be exposed to all and sundry as the racist, misogynistic, greedy scumbags they are. Maybe then we can actually start to make this country great again.
In the first case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has set rules as to the size of lobsters which can be harvested. Possession of lobsters which are smaller than the regulations permit (known as "short" lobsters) are in violation of 16 USC section 3372.a.1. (cf. Short Lobster Arrests)
In the second, possession of "any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law" (16 USC Sec 3372.a.2.A). [Emphasis added] For example, possession of Costa Rican Sailfish
I'm curious as to where you got that number from. Is this mostly speeding offensives or are there a lot of laws I don't know about?
There are over 10,000 Federal felonies. Plus the myriad state criminal laws so, yes, it's likely that you commit several crimes a day. Whether or not those crimes rise the the level of felonies is an open question. It is, under certain circumstances, a federal felony to possess a lobster. Or a fish.
Also, If you *touch* a police officer, that's a assault (according to the police, who get to decide these things) which is a felony. So don't pat a cop on the back and say, "You're doing a great job, officer!" because that could land you in prison.
In a nutshell, "There but for the grace of the police go I."
With Naziism a resurgent threat in Greece and trying to expand all across Europe, with American Republicans who express ideas as right wing and bonkers as those of Hitler, it's nice to know that the Kent police are so on top of things that they can find someone to deal with these serious hate crimes.
I'll assume this is a troll -- on a thread about the suppression of free speech, a bit of flamebait to goad others to attack your "hate speech".
I'd have to say, it's a nice bit of ironic trolling.
Perhaps not so much. We know that many prominent Americans shared Hitler's anti-semitism (T.J. Watson, Charles Lindbergh and even F.D.R). We also know that I.B.M. and other US corporations actively assisted Nazi Germany, with a mixture of fascistic, profit and anti-semitic motives.
As an American, I find it distasteful to harp on this, but the truth is the truth. Better we have it out in the open rather than let it fester in the wings. Just sayin'.
We then had to hold out until Roosevelt was able to overcome the Nazi sympathisers in his own country and enter the War.
There was quite a bit of activity on the US side in support of Britain (cf. Lend-Lease) which started more than a year before the US officially entered the war. That entry was, ostensibly, in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities. What? There was no verdict/ruling? Strange. I know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just so darn inconvenient. We should just do away with that whole thing. I mean, if we want to send you to prison or generally fuck up your life, why should we need anything like evidence or a trial? It just gums up the works if you ask me.
Except that Gambon aren't going to put Kim Dotcom in prison they're just denying him the right to exploit their TLD.
It would be the same if Kim Dotcom were to go to a bank asking for a loan. They are quite entitled to refuse him the loan based on what they know about his dealings in the past without requiring evidence of specific criminal convictions (although he has those for fraud and insider dealing already, separate from megaupload).
Seeing as I was responding to this:
Are people really stupid enough to think that Kim Dotcom's new venture doesn't have the same basic aim as his last venture? Or is this some kind of ivory tower intellectual exercise where we pretend we're that stupid, just so we can approach the issue using laughably naive and simplistic principles of fair play while ignoring the obvious facts?
Well here's a fact: the benefit of the doubt only extends as far as there is doubt.
I'm not sure what Gambon has to do with it. Please explain.
I am familiar with the "facts" of the case that the DOJ *didn't* make against Kim Dotcom. My point is that IMNSHO it's ridiculous (as many here have tried to do on this thread) to say things like "well, he's a criminal" "He's a loser. Screw him." "He should die in a fire." etc, etc, etc. when he has (to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities) paid his debts to society for the wrongs he has been tried and convicted for. From where I sit, he should be given the benefit of the doubt unless and until he's convicted of a crime.
That's not to say he's a stand up guy, or that I want him to marry my sister. However, there's this thing called "empathy." It's when you can put yourself in someone else's shoes and try to understand their point of view or predicament and at least try to understand what it might be like for you to be in the same situation.
It seems to me that this guy deserves the same protections under the law that I would like to have in a similar situation. Whether he was encouraging and/or profiting from copyright infringement (which, IMHO, should be a civil not a criminal matter) or not is irrelevant. The DOJ shut him down and seized his assets, destroying his business (and that of an uncounted number of perfectly legitimate people who used his service and didn't bother to retain back ups) without the evidence required to take him to trial and convict him. That's just wrong.
How would you like it if jack-booted thugs came to your business, removed the tools of your trade, seized your bank accounts and had you thrown in jail without having the evidence needed to convict you?
In any case, I don't have any stake in any of this guy's businesses, nor do I know him or anyone (AFAIK) who does. I just think it's really low to pile on someone just because you have an internet connection and some sort of axe to grind. Just as, as you put it, "As an individual you're allowed right or wrong to think as you like." Well that's what I think, right or wrong.
Are people really stupid enough to think that Kim Dotcom's new venture doesn't have the same basic aim as his last venture? Or is this some kind of ivory tower intellectual exercise where we pretend we're that stupid, just so we can approach the issue using laughably naive and simplistic principles of fair play while ignoring the obvious facts?
Well here's a fact: the benefit of the doubt only extends as far as there is doubt.
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities. What? There was no verdict/ruling? Strange. I know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just so darn inconvenient. We should just do away with that whole thing. I mean, if we want to send you to prison or generally fuck up your life, why should we need anything like evidence or a trial? It just gums up the works if you ask me.
Let set up long term(multi-year) education goals for kids? if they are accomplished at 13, great, 18? great. IN either case they graduate. Teenagers are running corporation, so I'm not exactly worried about the generation. I'm worried that we want to stick to useless ways of teaching just for the sake of tradition.
Lets not stuff traditional* ways down their throats because 'change is hard'.
Personally, I'm less concerned about the 13-18 yo demographic and more concerned about the 5-11 yo one. As is the FTC, since the rules change applies only to children under 13.
Many preteens/teenagers know when they're being marketed to and have the sophistication to deal with it appropriately. Younger children need to be monitored by their parents as they likely don't have the sophistication to understand what marketers are trying to accomplish.
I certainly don't want advertisers to create and maintain dossiers (with or without names) on my children (or on me, for that matter -- however, I understand the game and can take precautions for myself. I should be able to do the same for my kids). It's unfair to the child and it allows marketers an unprecedented level of intimacy with my childrens' habits and interests.
in case you hadn't noticed, our corporate overlords^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H benevolent businesses do *not* have our best interests at heart. They just want more and more money. That's what corporations do. I'm not downing capitalism or the value of using market forces.
However it's clear that they need to be restrained to keep them from further intruding on our personal lives.
We don't want the government to do this kind of thing. What makes it okay for corporations to do so on a much wider scale?
Less facetiously, I really don't care what your beliefs are, nor do I really care to discuss them or how you define them. I don't wish to discuss this with you, not because I have a problem with you or your beliefs, but because it's irrelevant to me.
If you don't like what I have to say, or how I say it, life is rough sometimes.
IMHO, It's kind of sad that you feel the need to engage in arguing over the dictionary definitions of words. Perhaps some underlying anger issues? Therapy can really help with that.
N.B. My original post was in reply to someone that commented about whether Einstein was a christian. Since neither he nor his family were *ever* christians, I pointed out it that it was highly unlikely that he would be a christian, regardless of his views on the existence of "god." That's it. All this other stuff is just extraneous BS. End of story.
Anybody who gets too close to speaking the truth about homosexuality, for example, will be fired, for 'offending' the wonderful, not mentally ill at all (because they told us so) 'gays'...
Okay. I'll bite. What is "the truth about homosexuality?" Please include appropriate citations to support your position.
Thank you. That is all.
The two real truths about homosexuality are
1. Homosexuals do not reproduce
2 It has almost always been illegal yet has always been around.
Sorry, I thought you might have figured out that I was using rhetoric and didn't actually expect you to leave the country.
My point still stands - if you live in a why should the majority have to change something perfectly reasonable, because a tiny whiny minority don't like it?
IMNSHO, Your rhetoric needs some work, friend. What is more, since you used the rhetoric of racist xenophobes, I figured you were just being snarky, rather than a xenophobic, racist jerk. I guess I was wrong.
Here in the US, we have the concept of religious freedom. The idea that all people should have the right to believe (or not) as their conscience dictates. I'm not advocating changing the name of holidays. Nor am I suggesting that people should give up their religious practices.
It just seems to me that in a society that guarantees religious freedom, enlightened folks will see that having an end of year office party whose guests will include a significant number of folks that are of different religious beliefs shouldn't be referred to a as a party reflecting the beliefs of just one of those sets of beliefs.
It's called being inclusive. It also shows respect for all employees, not just those who follow a specific religion.
Here in the US, this isn't unusual at all. Not sure where you live, but I'm glad I don't live there if you're a representative member of that community.
It's more nuanced than that. Atheism has a few meanings. The most popular take I've observed is more about disbelief than belief. I'm an atheist in the sense that I disbelieve god claims, but I don't say for certain that there are no such things as gods.
One who considers the existence of a god or gods to be unknown or unknowable, is called, in English, agnostic.
Yes, there are no rules as to what concepts a person wants to incorporate into their world view. In fact, there is even the concept of atheistic agnosticism which seems to comport with the ideas you've put forward.
However, it's customary for people to agree upon the definitions of words that they use when discussing the concepts underlying those words. I try to stick to the definitions in the dictionary so that we all have a reference that we agree upon.
A lack of belief (confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof) in something (god, the tooth fairy, whatever) necessarily implies belief in the the lack of that thing.
That's a very strained definition of belief. And, no, a lack of belief does not necessarily imply belief in an opposite or contrary view, or even that there is such a thing. For theism, which espouses belief in a god or gods, one is not of that state if one does not hold that belief. One might not even know about the idea of god or gods; but still, because one does not hold the belief, that makes one atheist.
You see, atheism has no catechism, no book, no rules: there's no "why" to it, because it's not a positive assertion. I'm unconvinced by supernatural arguments. I could easily be convinced by concrete evidence. I don't assert there is no god or gods. There might be. There might be elves, too. Fairies. Ghosts. Etc. I just have no reason to think so at this point.
So I hold no such belief. My confidence in these ideas is extremely low, but my belief is entirely lacking. Belief is, in the end, a personal assertion of, or perception of, some kind of truth. Truth, for me, requires both evidence and consensual experience. I can't get to a perception of truth with a complete lack of evidence, so... no belief. There's no evidence there isn't a god or gods, either. So I can't get to truth there, and so I hold no belief there.
What is confusing you is that some folks do make the claim "there is no god or gods", and, while they are atheist, they are going well beyond a simple lack of belief, for whatever reasons they might have. Just as a Christian theist goes well beyond "there is a god" with some very detailed specifics, and in a very different direction than a Hindu theist does, an atheist may go well beyond atheism with other ideas in the same sphere, and in a very different direction than I do. But it's not a given, and you shouldn't treat it as if it is.
Finally, I am far from alone in this basic take on atheism. It is neither a new idea, or a particularly debatable one. One of the interesting things about it, in fact, is that you usually hear it coming from theists. I would submit to you that theists, of all the people in the world, are least qualified to tell you what it is myself, and people like myself, think. If you want to know, ask. But please, stop trying to tell us what it is we think about things.
Oh, I get it now. You can call the dictionary definition strained if you like. Frankly, I don't much care what you think or believe. Not because I have any animosity towards you. I don't even know you. I certainly don't care enough to attempt to define *your* beliefs, an most certainly not enough to try to dictate my beliefs to anyone else.
If you think that a lack of belief in a god or gods is not the same as belief in the lack of them, by all means do so. I disagree. However, I wouldn't ask anyone to think or believe in a certain way. If that's how I came off, please accept my apologies.
I think what our linguistically challenged friend is trying to say is (note that this is a guess based on my understand of what you wrote AC, not an attempt to tell you what to think, say or do), is that non-belief in something does not preclude the existence of that thing. For example, the ancient Hebrews worshipped Hashem as their god. They did not, however, worship Ba'al as a god even if they may have believed that Ba'al existed.
No, that doesn't fit with our definitions but why should words have to have explicit meanings when our friend can define them however he likes? I mean it's not like changing the meaning of words to suit your world view is a new concept.
In any case, I'm not going to further involve myself in this AC's personal quest for meaning. He or she clearly has their own idea about the meaning of common words, which makes it difficult to discuss the subject when we can't even agree on the definition of certain words.
Slashdot Mirror
Stop with the likely. The claim was that people, on average, commit 3 felonies per day.
Provide an actual citation, or STFU.
Likely, your mama didn't love you. Likely, women laugh at the small size of your penis. Likely, you have a hard time holding a job because you're so obnoxious. Likely, you try to tell people how (or not) to express themselves online because your landlady handcuffs you to the toilet at night. Likely, you have an inferiority complex that forces you to lash out at people you don't even know online to make up for that emptiness inside. Likely, I would provide citations if you hadn't been such a douchebag about it.
I'm not sure why you had to bring your alma mater into this (BTW, where is STFU anyway?)
So succession = racism? Does the OP work for MSNBC and Chris "Tingles" Matthews?
Probably not. English much? succession
I doubt it. People like to bitch but the 50 States together are a superpower. Separately they're just little countries. The problem is that the art of compromise seems to be lost. No one wants to meet in the middle anymore. We need some leadership that knows how to reach across these boundaries but it appears to be at least four years out and maybe more. It's gonna be a rough ride in the meantime.
Unfortunately, those who could compromise have forgotten an important maxim -- "You know a compromise is a good one when *neither* side is happy." Since certain folks won't compromise when they're offered something like 80% of what they want, well that's how we got here.
Hmm...who was it that stonewalled at every turn? Who was it who wouldn't or couldn't even *discuss* compromise -- even to the detriment of the country? So hard to remember. Maybe someone could help me out with that?
Mitt was a dreadful choice for a conservative presidential candidate.
A dreadful choice for the Republican Party indeed as Ritt Momney is an actual conservative. Those folks who call themselves "conservative" are anything but. They are radical reactionaries bordering on fascism who want nothing more than a return to the GIlded Age with Jim Crow, monopolistic industries, Wells Fargo as union (and head) busters, women without the vote, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and on and on and on.
If these folks want to lie to themselves and call themselves "conservative," fine. But when they lie to me, I'm going to call them on it.
What, IMHO, will eventually happen is that the non-batshit crazy Republicans will join the Democratic Party and the Left will end up in the Green Party or something similar. This will leave the reactionaries without a base and they will be exposed to all and sundry as the racist, misogynistic, greedy scumbags they are. Maybe then we can actually start to make this country great again.
It is, under certain circumstances, a federal felony to possess a lobster. Or a fish.
Unless the given fish is being used as a deadly weapon that doesn't appear to make any sense.
Can you explain under what circumstances possession of a lobster or a fish is a felony?
Both situations are covered under 16 U.S.C. Sec. 3372
In the first case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has set rules as to the size of lobsters which can be harvested. Possession of lobsters which are smaller than the regulations permit (known as "short" lobsters) are in violation of 16 USC section 3372.a.1. (cf. Short Lobster Arrests)
In the second, possession of "any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State or in violation of any foreign law" (16 USC Sec 3372.a.2.A). [Emphasis added] For example, possession of Costa Rican Sailfish
N.B. IANAL
Fortunately, most of the morass is devoted to smallish fines.
Unless you happen to be poor. Or black. Or both. Then it's off to jail with you more often than not.
on average, in the US, 3 felonies a day
I'm curious as to where you got that number from. Is this mostly speeding offensives or are there a lot of laws I don't know about?
There are over 10,000 Federal felonies. Plus the myriad state criminal laws so, yes, it's likely that you commit several crimes a day. Whether or not those crimes rise the the level of felonies is an open question. It is, under certain circumstances, a federal felony to possess a lobster. Or a fish.
Also, If you *touch* a police officer, that's a assault (according to the police, who get to decide these things) which is a felony. So don't pat a cop on the back and say, "You're doing a great job, officer!" because that could land you in prison.
In a nutshell, "There but for the grace of the police go I."
It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses. --Elwood Blues
With Naziism a resurgent threat in Greece and trying to expand all across Europe, with American Republicans who express ideas as right wing and bonkers as those of Hitler, it's nice to know that the Kent police are so on top of things that they can find someone to deal with these serious hate crimes.
I'll assume this is a troll -- on a thread about the suppression of free speech, a bit of flamebait to goad others to attack your "hate speech". I'd have to say, it's a nice bit of ironic trolling.
Perhaps not so much. We know that many prominent Americans shared Hitler's anti-semitism (T.J. Watson, Charles Lindbergh and even F.D.R). We also know that I.B.M. and other US corporations actively assisted Nazi Germany, with a mixture of fascistic, profit and anti-semitic motives.
As an American, I find it distasteful to harp on this, but the truth is the truth. Better we have it out in the open rather than let it fester in the wings. Just sayin'.
We then had to hold out until Roosevelt was able to overcome the Nazi sympathisers in his own country and enter the War.
There was quite a bit of activity on the US side in support of Britain (cf. Lend-Lease) which started more than a year before the US officially entered the war. That entry was, ostensibly, in response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities. What? There was no verdict/ruling? Strange. I know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just so darn inconvenient. We should just do away with that whole thing. I mean, if we want to send you to prison or generally fuck up your life, why should we need anything like evidence or a trial? It just gums up the works if you ask me.
Except that Gambon aren't going to put Kim Dotcom in prison they're just denying him the right to exploit their TLD. It would be the same if Kim Dotcom were to go to a bank asking for a loan. They are quite entitled to refuse him the loan based on what they know about his dealings in the past without requiring evidence of specific criminal convictions (although he has those for fraud and insider dealing already, separate from megaupload).
Seeing as I was responding to this:
Are people really stupid enough to think that Kim Dotcom's new venture doesn't have the same basic aim as his last venture? Or is this some kind of ivory tower intellectual exercise where we pretend we're that stupid, just so we can approach the issue using laughably naive and simplistic principles of fair play while ignoring the obvious facts? Well here's a fact: the benefit of the doubt only extends as far as there is doubt.
I'm not sure what Gambon has to do with it. Please explain.
I am familiar with the "facts" of the case that the DOJ *didn't* make against Kim Dotcom. My point is that IMNSHO it's ridiculous (as many here have tried to do on this thread) to say things like "well, he's a criminal" "He's a loser. Screw him." "He should die in a fire." etc, etc, etc. when he has (to the satisfaction of the appropriate authorities) paid his debts to society for the wrongs he has been tried and convicted for. From where I sit, he should be given the benefit of the doubt unless and until he's convicted of a crime.
That's not to say he's a stand up guy, or that I want him to marry my sister. However, there's this thing called "empathy." It's when you can put yourself in someone else's shoes and try to understand their point of view or predicament and at least try to understand what it might be like for you to be in the same situation.
It seems to me that this guy deserves the same protections under the law that I would like to have in a similar situation. Whether he was encouraging and/or profiting from copyright infringement (which, IMHO, should be a civil not a criminal matter) or not is irrelevant. The DOJ shut him down and seized his assets, destroying his business (and that of an uncounted number of perfectly legitimate people who used his service and didn't bother to retain back ups) without the evidence required to take him to trial and convict him. That's just wrong.
How would you like it if jack-booted thugs came to your business, removed the tools of your trade, seized your bank accounts and had you thrown in jail without having the evidence needed to convict you?
In any case, I don't have any stake in any of this guy's businesses, nor do I know him or anyone (AFAIK) who does. I just think it's really low to pile on someone just because you have an internet connection and some sort of axe to grind. Just as, as you put it, "As an individual you're allowed right or wrong to think as you like." Well that's what I think, right or wrong.
Are people really stupid enough to think that Kim Dotcom's new venture doesn't have the same basic aim as his last venture? Or is this some kind of ivory tower intellectual exercise where we pretend we're that stupid, just so we can approach the issue using laughably naive and simplistic principles of fair play while ignoring the obvious facts?
Well here's a fact: the benefit of the doubt only extends as far as there is doubt.
Please point me at the jury verdict or court ruling that MegaUpload and/or Kim Dotcom was engaged in illegal activities. What? There was no verdict/ruling? Strange. I know that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing is just so darn inconvenient. We should just do away with that whole thing. I mean, if we want to send you to prison or generally fuck up your life, why should we need anything like evidence or a trial? It just gums up the works if you ask me.
Please.
If anybody disagrees, please tell me what's in it for Gabon to ban me.ga, preemptively even ?
As I previously pointed out. This could be a reason.
Nah,
Big guns and navy ships to spare will do fine.
Plus the several hundred thousand dollars in US foreign aid. It's the Golden Rule at work.
Let set up long term(multi-year) education goals for kids? if they are accomplished at 13, great, 18? great. IN either case they graduate. Teenagers are running corporation, so I'm not exactly worried about the generation. I'm worried that we want to stick to useless ways of teaching just for the sake of tradition. Lets not stuff traditional* ways down their throats because 'change is hard'.
Personally, I'm less concerned about the 13-18 yo demographic and more concerned about the 5-11 yo one. As is the FTC, since the rules change applies only to children under 13.
Many preteens/teenagers know when they're being marketed to and have the sophistication to deal with it appropriately. Younger children need to be monitored by their parents as they likely don't have the sophistication to understand what marketers are trying to accomplish.
I certainly don't want advertisers to create and maintain dossiers (with or without names) on my children (or on me, for that matter -- however, I understand the game and can take precautions for myself. I should be able to do the same for my kids). It's unfair to the child and it allows marketers an unprecedented level of intimacy with my childrens' habits and interests.
in case you hadn't noticed, our corporate overlords^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H benevolent businesses do *not* have our best interests at heart. They just want more and more money. That's what corporations do. I'm not downing capitalism or the value of using market forces.
However it's clear that they need to be restrained to keep them from further intruding on our personal lives.
We don't want the government to do this kind of thing. What makes it okay for corporations to do so on a much wider scale?
The slashdot effect is not what it once was. Also this place is full of MS and Apple folks these days. They would never know what to do with vim.
:q![return]
$ emacs[return]
--all the vi[m] you'll ever need to know.
Less facetiously, I really don't care what your beliefs are, nor do I really care to discuss them or how you define them. I don't wish to discuss this with you, not because I have a problem with you or your beliefs, but because it's irrelevant to me.
If you don't like what I have to say, or how I say it, life is rough sometimes.
IMHO, It's kind of sad that you feel the need to engage in arguing over the dictionary definitions of words. Perhaps some underlying anger issues? Therapy can really help with that.
N.B. My original post was in reply to someone that commented about whether Einstein was a christian. Since neither he nor his family were *ever* christians, I pointed out it that it was highly unlikely that he would be a christian, regardless of his views on the existence of "god." That's it. All this other stuff is just extraneous BS. End of story.
Have a nice day.
Anybody who gets too close to speaking the truth about homosexuality, for example, will be fired, for 'offending' the wonderful, not mentally ill at all (because they told us so) 'gays'...
Okay. I'll bite. What is "the truth about homosexuality?" Please include appropriate citations to support your position. Thank you. That is all.
The two real truths about homosexuality are 1. Homosexuals do not reproduce 2 It has almost always been illegal yet has always been around.
Citations please.
We're you not aware that there are other dictionaries and that atheism, simply based on its etymology, can mean a lack of belief?
No. There is only one dictionary. It was written in 1437 by John Walker and is the only authority on all languages, human and alien.
I'm not going to feed you anymore, troll. Go back under your bridge.
Sorry, I thought you might have figured out that I was using rhetoric and didn't actually expect you to leave the country.
My point still stands - if you live in a why should the majority have to change something perfectly reasonable, because a tiny whiny minority don't like it?
IMNSHO, Your rhetoric needs some work, friend. What is more, since you used the rhetoric of racist xenophobes, I figured you were just being snarky, rather than a xenophobic, racist jerk. I guess I was wrong.
Here in the US, we have the concept of religious freedom. The idea that all people should have the right to believe (or not) as their conscience dictates. I'm not advocating changing the name of holidays. Nor am I suggesting that people should give up their religious practices.
It just seems to me that in a society that guarantees religious freedom, enlightened folks will see that having an end of year office party whose guests will include a significant number of folks that are of different religious beliefs shouldn't be referred to a as a party reflecting the beliefs of just one of those sets of beliefs.
It's called being inclusive. It also shows respect for all employees, not just those who follow a specific religion.
Here in the US, this isn't unusual at all. Not sure where you live, but I'm glad I don't live there if you're a representative member of that community.
It's more nuanced than that. Atheism has a few meanings. The most popular take I've observed is more about disbelief than belief. I'm an atheist in the sense that I disbelieve god claims, but I don't say for certain that there are no such things as gods.
One who considers the existence of a god or gods to be unknown or unknowable, is called, in English, agnostic.
Atheism is something else entirely.
Yes, there are no rules as to what concepts a person wants to incorporate into their world view. In fact, there is even the concept of atheistic agnosticism which seems to comport with the ideas you've put forward.
However, it's customary for people to agree upon the definitions of words that they use when discussing the concepts underlying those words. I try to stick to the definitions in the dictionary so that we all have a reference that we agree upon.
That's a very strained definition of belief. And, no, a lack of belief does not necessarily imply belief in an opposite or contrary view, or even that there is such a thing. For theism, which espouses belief in a god or gods, one is not of that state if one does not hold that belief. One might not even know about the idea of god or gods; but still, because one does not hold the belief, that makes one atheist.
You see, atheism has no catechism, no book, no rules: there's no "why" to it, because it's not a positive assertion. I'm unconvinced by supernatural arguments. I could easily be convinced by concrete evidence. I don't assert there is no god or gods. There might be. There might be elves, too. Fairies. Ghosts. Etc. I just have no reason to think so at this point.
So I hold no such belief. My confidence in these ideas is extremely low, but my belief is entirely lacking. Belief is, in the end, a personal assertion of, or perception of, some kind of truth. Truth, for me, requires both evidence and consensual experience. I can't get to a perception of truth with a complete lack of evidence, so... no belief. There's no evidence there isn't a god or gods, either. So I can't get to truth there, and so I hold no belief there.
What is confusing you is that some folks do make the claim "there is no god or gods", and, while they are atheist, they are going well beyond a simple lack of belief, for whatever reasons they might have. Just as a Christian theist goes well beyond "there is a god" with some very detailed specifics, and in a very different direction than a Hindu theist does, an atheist may go well beyond atheism with other ideas in the same sphere, and in a very different direction than I do. But it's not a given, and you shouldn't treat it as if it is.
Finally, I am far from alone in this basic take on atheism. It is neither a new idea, or a particularly debatable one. One of the interesting things about it, in fact, is that you usually hear it coming from theists. I would submit to you that theists, of all the people in the world, are least qualified to tell you what it is myself, and people like myself, think. If you want to know, ask. But please, stop trying to tell us what it is we think about things.
Oh, I get it now. You can call the dictionary definition strained if you like. Frankly, I don't much care what you think or believe. Not because I have any animosity towards you. I don't even know you. I certainly don't care enough to attempt to define *your* beliefs, an most certainly not enough to try to dictate my beliefs to anyone else.
If you think that a lack of belief in a god or gods is not the same as belief in the lack of them, by all means do so. I disagree. However, I wouldn't ask anyone to think or believe in a certain way. If that's how I came off, please accept my apologies.
Thanks Mr. Kelsen. You nailed it.
I think what our linguistically challenged friend is trying to say is (note that this is a guess based on my understand of what you wrote AC, not an attempt to tell you what to think, say or do), is that non-belief in something does not preclude the existence of that thing. For example, the ancient Hebrews worshipped Hashem as their god. They did not, however, worship Ba'al as a god even if they may have believed that Ba'al existed.
No, that doesn't fit with our definitions but why should words have to have explicit meanings when our friend can define them however he likes? I mean it's not like changing the meaning of words to suit your world view is a new concept.
In any case, I'm not going to further involve myself in this AC's personal quest for meaning. He or she clearly has their own idea about the meaning of common words, which makes it difficult to discuss the subject when we can't even agree on the definition of certain words.