I'm an agnostic. I don't particularly care for any of the religions. However, in this country, and in the language we speak, that particularl holiday is called "Christmas". I believe it's the same in the US, too. Honestly, do you really think that most people care about the religious aspect of it?
If you're offended by the culture and customs in my country, maybe you should go back to your own. Isn't that what people tell the Muslims? Why should it be different for anyone else?
I don't advocate changing the name of any holiday, although I and some of my friends have joked about 'non-denominational gift-exchange day' and such-like. I merely pointed out that there are multiple holidays celebrated during a similar time frame (Chanukkah, Kwanzaa, various solstice festivals, etc.), so when an organization that employs adherents (and/or non-adherents) to various religious groups, having a "Christmas" party for the staff might not be as inclusive as having a "holiday" party. Where I work, we have a "holiday" party rather than a "Christmas" party.
Not sure what country you're in, but my country (The USA) has people from many cultures who follow many different religions, or follow no religion in a variety of ways.
As for me returning to my own country, that's just ignorant xenophobia on your part. I was born about five miles from where I currently reside and have lived in this area pretty much my whole life.
As such, where do you suggest I go? I could make some recommendations about where you can go, how to get there and what to do once you arrive, but I'll refrain.
Entirely incorrect. Atheists are those without a belief in a god or gods. It's not an assertive position. Theism is the assertive position; an atheist is any person not taking that position - the 'a' in atheism literally means "without"; "theism" is belief in a god or gods.
Entirely incorrect, eh? That's bold talk from a one-eyed fat man.
You posit that lack of belief in a god or gods does not imply disbelief in the existence of same.
Let's try a little experiment:
belief == confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Lack of belief == a lack of confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
>/p>
One who lacks confidence in the existence of god == atheist.
Thanks for playing. I sure hope you're an ESL person.
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.
That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
I always find the fetishism many atheists have towards rationality amusing, since atheism isn't a particularly rational belief (that would be agnosticism). It's very hard for a belief system to be "demonstrably false" when that system includes as a basic premise a conscious entity that can transcend the physical laws of the universe. Unprovable, yes, but not provably false. That's a distinction that many self-described paragons of rationality don't seem to be able to grasp.
I did not say that belief in "god" was demonstrably false. My apologies. I should have been more clear -- saying something like this: most religions incorporate false belief systems (e.g., the world was created six thousand years ago in seven days, or that Brahma split himself in two to create man and woman, etc., etc., etc.).
If we look to science and rationality, we know these creation myths to be just that -- myths. We don't have a clear (at least not clear enough for my taste) picture of what happened in the several hundred thousand years after whatever events *appear* to have manifested this corner of space-time as we can't observe the photons involved, but we do have a pretty clear picture of how our solar system was formed. We don't have a clear picture of how life on Earth got started, but we do have a number of theories that *actually fit the evidence we do have*. We have an idea (with lots of gaps) of how life evolved from very simple forms into the myriad of forms we see in the fossil record and living today.
That's the nice part about science and rationality. I became an atheist (after being an agnostic for most of my adult life) when I came to the conclusion that agnosticism is refusing to use the information we have available to us to describe how the universe works. If evidence is discovered that invalidates the theories (or, in this context, beliefs) we've put forward and relied upon, we give them up and try to get closer to the truth. AFAICT, atheism best describes reality. Should other evidence be uncovered that gives the lie to that, then I'll re-evaluate my beliefs.
If that's fetishism, I better go and join FetLife and join the appropriate group, huh?
Another idiot who does know what "agnostic" means. Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Hell, Agnosticism and theism aren't either. Saying someone is agnostic tells you nothing about their belief or disbelief in a god. You can be an agnostic Christian.
Atheists believe that there is no god. Agnostics believe that whether or not "god" (whatever that means) exists is unknowable.
Having been first an agnostic and am now an atheist, I'm well aware of what the terms mean.
If you'd bothered to actually comprehend what I wrote you'd get my point. I'll make it again and I'll use small words to be sure you'll understand you warthog-faced buffoon.
It doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Einstein was an atheist or agnostic. He was a Jew. That makes it very unlikely that he would be a christian regardless of what his beliefs were with respect to the existence of god. Note that whether one is an agnostic with no religious affiliation or an agnostic with a religious affiliation is irrelevant to the point.
In what way is saying "Christmas party" exclusive?
While I am an atheist, ethnically I'm a Jew. Christmas is a christian holiday that has no religious meaning for my ethnic group. Nor does it have meaning for buddhists, muslims, hindus, taoists and dozens of other religions. That's why it's exclusive rather than inclusive
Or are you saying that everyone should be a christian, so it's inclusive because it's the only true religion?
That's so cute how you come to this thread to proselytize your views on gay marriage, and endorse forcing those views on the rest of society. The only difference between you and that guy is you're not doing it at work.
How exactly is the GP trying to force his or her views on the rest of society? The point was that no one is asking anyone to do anything they do not wish to do. Only that all of us are treated equally under the law.
I know, I know, this whole "All men are created equal" thing is a left-wing conspiracy designed by atheistic socialists bent on the destruction of our free, god-fearing, religious paradise. It's just a ploy to gut the true religion and create a new Sodom.
It wasn't his personal religious beliefs, it was the fact he wouldn't keep them personal. No employee, not even a government employee has an absolute right to proselytize at work. You are requires to maintain standards of decorum and behaviour, and if there are repeated complaints by coworkers and warnings from management you will likely end up being fired.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
This is what is called a "strawman". Your hypothetical atheist is garbage. What atheists claim is that religious people have no basis for their religious beliefs, and are likely as not to be wrong. Being an idiot is an extrapolation you're free to make, based on your imaginary friends in the clouds.
As an atheist, I'd point out that I don't claim that religious people have no basis for their religious beliefs. Far from it, there are (depending on the religion) tens, hundreds or even thousands of years of religious thought, writing and doctrine that religious folks can draw on in forming their religious beliefs.
The fact that, at least from a scientific standpoint, none of it can be scientifically validated leads me to believe that religions are not a a good mechanism for describing our universe. Anything else is speculation.
Nah, Abel never shagged anyone because he was murdered by Cain. It is more likely that their younger siblings shagged with each other rather than with their parents; assuming monogamy was in practice.
Polygamy was normal and common in that area of the world at that time.
Read the thread history. It started, not with a Christian saying "Einstein's belief legitimises mine", it started with an atheistic troll saying "All religious people are fucking stupid".
Einstein wasn't brought up as a confirmation of belief, he was brought up as a counter-example. And even if that particular example isn't a great one (Einstein wasn't a Christian, but he didn't outright reject the notion of divinity, so he's not really a star witness for either side), there are plenty more to fall back on.
While It's kind of sad when some obnoxious jerk wants to poke religious folks in the eye, it's kind of amusing that the best the religious folks can come up with is an agnostic. That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
It is, however, a great place to find comfort, meaning and the certainty that some enormously powerful being is in your corner. Which is very satisfying for many people. We all create meaning for ourselves. Who is that obnoxious jerk (or me or anyone else for that matter) to judge the beliefs others. Even if those beliefs are demonstrably false, we should respect that others believe differently. Just don't try to force me (or anyone else) to believe the same way.
I'd also point out (which seems to be lost on a lot of the folks here) that most people, even though they may believe in one or more deities) are not christians.
No one told anyone to shut up or stop speaking their mind. Rather, several people questioned the quality of the source. It seems to me that if you disagree with a poster's statements, you might want to try (as you did, not very successfully IMHO) presenting your side.
I'm curious if you have the same lofty standards for the post I was replying to. Here it is, for your convenience:
TheBlaze (i.e. Glenn Beck) is not a credible news source. Please delete this article.
And was it deleted? Uhhh...no. How about this one: dfenstrate, you are not a credible/.er. you need to be banned! Gosh, that got you banned but quick, right? Okay. We can stop having this discussion now because you're banned.
You're behaving like a child. "Mommy! He said Glenn Beck isn't credible! He even suggested that the post containing an article from Mr. Beck's site should be deleted! Waahh!!! I'm being censored!"
Please.
As I said before, if you disagree, then make an argument that supports your position. I know. That's such a novel idea.
You could have just walked away. Yet you're here, and demanding silence on the part of folks you politically oppose.
My point stands.
I find your attitude really amusing. No one told anyone to shut up or stop speaking their mind. Rather, several people questioned the quality of the source. It seems to me that if you disagree with a poster's statements, you might want to try (as you did, not very successfully IMHO) presenting your side.
But since you didn't get any joy there, it's time to start screaming about being censored, eh? Now if your posts were getting deleted, you might have a point. But when folks just disagree and you can't do any better than "stop telling me to shut up!" that's just sad.
All that said, please by all means write whatever you want. Then again, in your case perhaps it's better to remain silent and just be thought a fool, eh? Oops. Too late.
How do you rectify ignoring one past administration (Hoover) and not ignoring another past administration (Bush)?
The current Obama DoJ maintained the status quo, the sins of the fathers, by choice.
If I understood correctly, the GP was talking about J. Edgar Hoover not Herbert Hoover. J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI and its predecessor (Bureau of Investigation) from 1924-1972. If I counted right, that was through seven presidential administrations -- three Republican and four Democratic.
Stop blaming the lawyers is the first step on the road to hell. They are guilty of something, by definition, if there is a law that could be twisted or corrupted for their profit, they will, no matter what comes after, they got their pay.
I know. Shakespeare definitely had it right! Especially these guys! Money grubbing scumbags, the lot!
You're misunderstanding him, as I suspect he wants you to.
He said most child molesters previously looked at kiddie porn; not most people who look at kiddie porn end up molesting kids. His statement is true, but doesn't support his thesis; what he wants you to misunderstand it as supports his thesis, but is not true.
Same as the gateway drug bullshit.
Most murderers have drank alcoholic beverages. But most people who drink do not end up murdering, so that's no argument for prohibition.
no. I don't misunderstand. I challenged the (I assume other) AC to provide citations for his ridiculous thesis. It's just scaremongering hogwash with no real data to back it up. Which is why we won't hear back from that particular AC with data, because he/she is wrong, just as you say.
Just to clarify my own point of view, I don't advocate for child porn. Every image or video represents the abuse of one or more children. There's no excuse for that. Those who abuse children (sexually or otherwise) should be vigorously prosecuted. However, prosecuting (and then branding for life as a dangerous predator) someone who inadvertently views child porn is wrong.
Even worse, is prosecuting people for having animated depictions or even prose fiction of such stuff.
I can't imagine what I would do if someone abused my child, but it would not be pretty. However, jailing people who stumble on a Traci Lords video online that was made when she was underage (having lied to the producers), is beyond stupid. Then there's the teenager who goes to prison for "possession of CP" and is forever branded a sexual predator because his (also teenage) girlfriend texted him raunchy photos of herself.
I don't have data, but I suspect (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the above are not edge cases where once in a while someone gets swept up in a much larger net of dangerous predators. It seems to me that the dangerous predators once in a while get caught in a much larger net of generally innocent people. It's Bass ackwards, I say.
Thank you for your comments. They're much appreciated. Hopefully we can have a productive discussion.
All your flowery language will not distract me from the non-theoretical point: Your desire for anonymity does not give me reason to support changing EXISTING law. Yes, *I* am not the one asking for the current laws be changed - you are. Thus, even though you couch your arguments in lots of scary sounding words, you offer nothing for those whose goal is to live a happy life with their family.
I never said I wanted to change existing laws. Please show me where I said that. The closest thing to changing laws in my post was: The fact that those rights have been slowly whittled down by unconstitutional legislation and a "law and order" (read fascist) judiciary, doesn't make those rights invalid. Rather it's our job as citizens, members of our communities and our society to police the police, so to speak.
is there something wrong with wanting to preserve the constitutional rights and liberty that our ancestors risked their lives to create for themselves and bequeathed to us?
I want you to be anonymous as well; but the way you want it to happen will strip away the ability of police agencies to prevent violent crime. For no other reason than your personal comfort.
I'm not sure I mentioned anything about anonymity (you're the one who's posting as an AC) or my personal comfort. Nor was that implied. I'm not against law enforcement's ability to investigate crime. I'm against law enforcement (or anyone else, for that matter) violating our highest law (the constitution). Are you against the US constitution? Specific sections or amendments? What specifically do you think should be changed? There are mechanisms (the amendment process) to change the constitution. If Congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures say it needs to change, then we change it.
Again, I am not the one asking that the current laws be changed - YOU and your ilk are. If you are honest in what you want, all you have to do is to convince the majority of the populace that the ability to keep illegal activities secret (to satisfy the needs of the aberrant) is more important than allowing police to detect and follow up on known patterns of behavior that reliably predict violent acts. Which won't get you very far - if you are honest.
I'm not asking for current laws to be changed. I'm demanding that our government abide by our laws.
The constitution does not say that we have rights and liberties unless the police say otherwise. It sounds to me like you don't respect our system or our society. You certainly don't seem to understand (or just don't like) the concepts and ideals embodied in our Constitution.
Which is why we have all this talk of police states and people getting rounded up because they have the wrong eye color or whatever.
Fine, you have your goals. But don't expect the people whose personal goal is to live in peace and be safe from completely predictable violent acts to support you.
My goals include living a good life and doing so ethically and without harming or infringing on the rights of others as guaranteed by our highest law. Not sure what other goals you're referring to. I have career goals and life goals which really aren't any of your business. I have no desire to negatively impact anyone. I just feel strongly that we should hold those who have been given positions of trust and authority to the standards *explicitly* defined by our highest law. What's wrong with that?
And people like you, ASD folks with odd habits and predilections; I'm sorry that there are things you do and needs you have that you'd rather not be known (even if it is only "known" in the macro sense), but you are a tiny minority. And what you want to CH
If the downloading of child pornography is made to be undetectable, then there is no way to detect potentially dangerous pedophiles. There certainly may have been some instance where a pedophile had never downloaded child porn before molesting a child; but the overwhelming number of those convicted of molesting a child had previously engaged in a escalating pattern of behavior that ended with the offense against the person of a child.
[emphasis added]
Citations please. Especially data on the percentage of those who have viewed (intentionally or unintentionally) CP that, at some point after that, actually molest a child.
I should have made it more clear in the post you replied to that I was not specifically referencing the article. So, with that in mind, can you address my post again? Remember, I'm looking for concrete answers, not theoretical generalities.
I think it is a given that parents should strive to make sure their children are good citizens and do knowingly harm others. Nothing I said is referencing that - it is about OTHER people. How do I protect my family (within the framework of the changes you would like to see in the laws) proactively? And I mean without moving my family into the wilderness or otherwise removing them from society.
I understand that there is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone, but there is such a thing as making sure that the odds favor life and safety - and not the opposite.
Freedom isn't necessarily safe.
The same concepts and ideals that allow you to spout off about how the crazies are determined to molest, torture and kill your babies includes the idea that one's personal space is sacrosanct. That's why we used to require warrants for searches and surveillance back in the soi-distant past.
Your family's safety is the responsibility of your family (one shared, hopefully, by your community), not society. Society's responsibility is preserving and protecting our way of life. It's failing miserably, thanks in no small part to selfish, frightened people like yourself and selfish, greedy "people" that make up the "security" (police/intelligence/military/prison, or as I like to call it, PIMP complex) infrastructure.
Why are you asking us to tell you how to keep your family safe? It seems to me like you're either trolling or have such an inflated ego that you think that we should all give up the liberty at the heart of the ideals our nation of laws was founded upon. When you use police techniques that violate the spirit, and often, the letter of our highest law, you risk the entire republic.
You say those who don't obey the law must be removed from society because they're eventually going to be a danger to that society (and what that really means is you think they might be a danger to you or your family, as you clearly have no respect for our society, or the ideals it was founded upon).
Our ideals (many of which are codified in the US constitution and its amendments) say that we have the right to be secure in our persons, homes and property; that negating that security may only be done when there is "probable cause" and that law enforcement must obtain consent (a warrant) from an impartial arbiter (a judge) to vet said "probable cause." They also say that we are innocent until proven guilty -- so that the burden of proof (and "probable cause") is on law enforcement to breach those security rights.
The fact that those rights have been slowly whittled down by unconstitutional legislation and a "law and order" (read fascist) judiciary, doesn't make those rights invalid. Rather it's our job as citizens, members of our communities and our society to police the police, so to speak.
Yes, the ideals of a nation of laws, upon which our society was founded, makes it harder for law enforcement to identify and hold accountable those who violate those laws. That's the price we have to pay to make our society work.
Protect your family. Do all you can to keep them safe. However, while setting up audio and video surveillance without due process may make you *feel* safer, it actually makes you less safe. That's because now you don't just have to worry about the law breakers, you have to worry about the law *enforcers* as well.
Actually they can still target you under a fake identity, so that one wouldn't work so well.
I'll give you that they could *attempt* to make a case on such a basis. Certainly we've seen that twisted in some prosecutions of "hackers". Whether a prosecutor would go along with it in this context, and whether it would even survive preliminary motions is another story altogether.
I see that my sarcasm has eluded you. My apologies for any confusion. The thrust of what I was saying is that it would be ridiculous to try to bring any kind of action (civil or criminal) in a situation like that. Then again, perhaps we will go down that road. That would be quite frightening -- having to pay damages or even go to jail for creating a social networking account with a fake name.
huh! That's even less than your source says we spend on the military, which initially surprised me. But, my first question was: Did they account for spending by the states in their estimate? Further, in trying to sort out the source for the data, the site seemed to repeatedly cite itself in an orobouros-like fashion. Do you have another source?
Right, and this tells me I can't violate TOS with a private company.... where exactly? If you actually read the text you provided, you'll see that it doesn't, not even indirectly.
The remedy for violated ToS is termination of service, as is typically spelled out in the ToS themselves.
Section (A)(5)(C) explicitly states that:
...intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss
Accessing a social media account using fake data can certainly be construed as accessing the system without authorization (you are not, in fact, the person whose every move and preference is tracked via this account). Potentially costing FB, G+, etc., etc. money by lying about who you are so they can't target you with their ads (Probably using an ad blocker will eventually be applied to this too), can cause a loss of ad sales revenue.
This must be prevented at all costs! Allowing people to give false names, addresses, birth dates, demographic and psychographic information is a direct assault on our economic system and is just as destructive to our corporate overlor..err..great nation as is a terrorist attack. If you ask me, five years in prison isn't enough for these lowlifes!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm an agnostic. I don't particularly care for any of the religions. However, in this country, and in the language we speak, that particularl holiday is called "Christmas". I believe it's the same in the US, too. Honestly, do you really think that most people care about the religious aspect of it?
If you're offended by the culture and customs in my country, maybe you should go back to your own. Isn't that what people tell the Muslims? Why should it be different for anyone else?
I don't advocate changing the name of any holiday, although I and some of my friends have joked about 'non-denominational gift-exchange day' and such-like. I merely pointed out that there are multiple holidays celebrated during a similar time frame (Chanukkah, Kwanzaa, various solstice festivals, etc.), so when an organization that employs adherents (and/or non-adherents) to various religious groups, having a "Christmas" party for the staff might not be as inclusive as having a "holiday" party. Where I work, we have a "holiday" party rather than a "Christmas" party.
Not sure what country you're in, but my country (The USA) has people from many cultures who follow many different religions, or follow no religion in a variety of ways.
As for me returning to my own country, that's just ignorant xenophobia on your part. I was born about five miles from where I currently reside and have lived in this area pretty much my whole life.
As such, where do you suggest I go? I could make some recommendations about where you can go, how to get there and what to do once you arrive, but I'll refrain.
Thanks! And have a great day!
Entirely incorrect. Atheists are those without a belief in a god or gods. It's not an assertive position. Theism is the assertive position; an atheist is any person not taking that position - the 'a' in atheism literally means "without"; "theism" is belief in a god or gods.
Entirely incorrect, eh? That's bold talk from a one-eyed fat man.
You posit that lack of belief in a god or gods does not imply disbelief in the existence of same.
Au contraire. 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.
Let's try a little experiment:
belief == confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof
Lack of belief == a lack of confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof >/p>
One who lacks confidence in the existence of god == atheist.
Thanks for playing. I sure hope you're an ESL person.
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.
That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
I always find the fetishism many atheists have towards rationality amusing, since atheism isn't a particularly rational belief (that would be agnosticism). It's very hard for a belief system to be "demonstrably false" when that system includes as a basic premise a conscious entity that can transcend the physical laws of the universe. Unprovable, yes, but not provably false. That's a distinction that many self-described paragons of rationality don't seem to be able to grasp.
I did not say that belief in "god" was demonstrably false. My apologies. I should have been more clear -- saying something like this: most religions incorporate false belief systems (e.g., the world was created six thousand years ago in seven days, or that Brahma split himself in two to create man and woman, etc., etc., etc.).
If we look to science and rationality, we know these creation myths to be just that -- myths. We don't have a clear (at least not clear enough for my taste) picture of what happened in the several hundred thousand years after whatever events *appear* to have manifested this corner of space-time as we can't observe the photons involved, but we do have a pretty clear picture of how our solar system was formed. We don't have a clear picture of how life on Earth got started, but we do have a number of theories that *actually fit the evidence we do have*. We have an idea (with lots of gaps) of how life evolved from very simple forms into the myriad of forms we see in the fossil record and living today.
That's the nice part about science and rationality. I became an atheist (after being an agnostic for most of my adult life) when I came to the conclusion that agnosticism is refusing to use the information we have available to us to describe how the universe works. If evidence is discovered that invalidates the theories (or, in this context, beliefs) we've put forward and relied upon, we give them up and try to get closer to the truth. AFAICT, atheism best describes reality. Should other evidence be uncovered that gives the lie to that, then I'll re-evaluate my beliefs.
If that's fetishism, I better go and join FetLife and join the appropriate group, huh?
Another idiot who does know what "agnostic" means. Agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive. Hell, Agnosticism and theism aren't either. Saying someone is agnostic tells you nothing about their belief or disbelief in a god. You can be an agnostic Christian.
Atheists believe that there is no god. Agnostics believe that whether or not "god" (whatever that means) exists is unknowable.
Having been first an agnostic and am now an atheist, I'm well aware of what the terms mean.
If you'd bothered to actually comprehend what I wrote you'd get my point. I'll make it again and I'll use small words to be sure you'll understand you warthog-faced buffoon.
It doesn't matter whether or not Mr. Einstein was an atheist or agnostic. He was a Jew. That makes it very unlikely that he would be a christian regardless of what his beliefs were with respect to the existence of god. Note that whether one is an agnostic with no religious affiliation or an agnostic with a religious affiliation is irrelevant to the point.
And you call *me* an idiot? Please.
In what way is saying "Christmas party" exclusive?
While I am an atheist, ethnically I'm a Jew. Christmas is a christian holiday that has no religious meaning for my ethnic group. Nor does it have meaning for buddhists, muslims, hindus, taoists and dozens of other religions. That's why it's exclusive rather than inclusive
Or are you saying that everyone should be a christian, so it's inclusive because it's the only true religion?
That's so cute how you come to this thread to proselytize your views on gay marriage, and endorse forcing those views on the rest of society. The only difference between you and that guy is you're not doing it at work.
How exactly is the GP trying to force his or her views on the rest of society? The point was that no one is asking anyone to do anything they do not wish to do. Only that all of us are treated equally under the law.
I know, I know, this whole "All men are created equal" thing is a left-wing conspiracy designed by atheistic socialists bent on the destruction of our free, god-fearing, religious paradise. It's just a ploy to gut the true religion and create a new Sodom.
Sigh!
It wasn't his personal religious beliefs, it was the fact he wouldn't keep them personal. No employee, not even a government employee has an absolute right to proselytize at work. You are requires to maintain standards of decorum and behaviour, and if there are repeated complaints by coworkers and warnings from management you will likely end up being fired.
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
--Winston Churchill
This is what is called a "strawman". Your hypothetical atheist is garbage. What atheists claim is that religious people have no basis for their religious beliefs, and are likely as not to be wrong. Being an idiot is an extrapolation you're free to make, based on your imaginary friends in the clouds.
As an atheist, I'd point out that I don't claim that religious people have no basis for their religious beliefs. Far from it, there are (depending on the religion) tens, hundreds or even thousands of years of religious thought, writing and doctrine that religious folks can draw on in forming their religious beliefs.
The fact that, at least from a scientific standpoint, none of it can be scientifically validated leads me to believe that religions are not a a good mechanism for describing our universe. Anything else is speculation.
Nah, Abel never shagged anyone because he was murdered by Cain. It is more likely that their younger siblings shagged with each other rather than with their parents; assuming monogamy was in practice.
Polygamy was normal and common in that area of the world at that time.
That alone isn't enough to call him a Christian, though.
Since Einstein was Jewish by birth, even if he wasn't agnostic or atheist, he almost certainly wouldn't be a christian.
Read the thread history. It started, not with a Christian saying "Einstein's belief legitimises mine", it started with an atheistic troll saying "All religious people are fucking stupid".
Einstein wasn't brought up as a confirmation of belief, he was brought up as a counter-example. And even if that particular example isn't a great one (Einstein wasn't a Christian, but he didn't outright reject the notion of divinity, so he's not really a star witness for either side), there are plenty more to fall back on.
While It's kind of sad when some obnoxious jerk wants to poke religious folks in the eye, it's kind of amusing that the best the religious folks can come up with is an agnostic. That said, as an atheist it seems that placing faith in a demonstrably false belief system (i.e., most religions) isn't the best way to find truth.
It is, however, a great place to find comfort, meaning and the certainty that some enormously powerful being is in your corner. Which is very satisfying for many people. We all create meaning for ourselves. Who is that obnoxious jerk (or me or anyone else for that matter) to judge the beliefs others. Even if those beliefs are demonstrably false, we should respect that others believe differently. Just don't try to force me (or anyone else) to believe the same way.
I'd also point out (which seems to be lost on a lot of the folks here) that most people, even though they may believe in one or more deities) are not christians.
I'm curious if you have the same lofty standards for the post I was replying to. Here it is, for your convenience:
TheBlaze (i.e. Glenn Beck) is not a credible news source. Please delete this article.
And was it deleted? Uhhh...no. How about this one: dfenstrate, you are not a credible /.er. you need to be banned! Gosh, that got you banned but quick, right? Okay. We can stop having this discussion now because you're banned.
You're behaving like a child. "Mommy! He said Glenn Beck isn't credible! He even suggested that the post containing an article from Mr. Beck's site should be deleted! Waahh!!! I'm being censored!"
Please.
As I said before, if you disagree, then make an argument that supports your position. I know. That's such a novel idea.
You could have just walked away. Yet you're here, and demanding silence on the part of folks you politically oppose.
My point stands.
I find your attitude really amusing. No one told anyone to shut up or stop speaking their mind. Rather, several people questioned the quality of the source. It seems to me that if you disagree with a poster's statements, you might want to try (as you did, not very successfully IMHO) presenting your side.
But since you didn't get any joy there, it's time to start screaming about being censored, eh? Now if your posts were getting deleted, you might have a point. But when folks just disagree and you can't do any better than "stop telling me to shut up!" that's just sad.
All that said, please by all means write whatever you want. Then again, in your case perhaps it's better to remain silent and just be thought a fool, eh? Oops. Too late.
Have a wonderful day!
How do you rectify ignoring one past administration (Hoover) and not ignoring another past administration (Bush)?
The current Obama DoJ maintained the status quo, the sins of the fathers, by choice.
If I understood correctly, the GP was talking about J. Edgar Hoover not Herbert Hoover. J. Edgar Hoover was the head of the FBI and its predecessor (Bureau of Investigation) from 1924-1972. If I counted right, that was through seven presidential administrations -- three Republican and four Democratic.
Sometimes it helps to have a clue. Just sayin'.
Now that's what I'm talkin' about!
Stop blaming the lawyers is the first step on the road to hell. They are guilty of something, by definition, if there is a law that could be twisted or corrupted for their profit, they will, no matter what comes after, they got their pay.
I know. Shakespeare definitely had it right! Especially these guys! Money grubbing scumbags, the lot!
You're misunderstanding him, as I suspect he wants you to.
He said most child molesters previously looked at kiddie porn; not most people who look at kiddie porn end up molesting kids. His statement is true, but doesn't support his thesis; what he wants you to misunderstand it as supports his thesis, but is not true.
Same as the gateway drug bullshit.
Most murderers have drank alcoholic beverages. But most people who drink do not end up murdering, so that's no argument for prohibition.
no. I don't misunderstand. I challenged the (I assume other) AC to provide citations for his ridiculous thesis. It's just scaremongering hogwash with no real data to back it up. Which is why we won't hear back from that particular AC with data, because he/she is wrong, just as you say.
Just to clarify my own point of view, I don't advocate for child porn. Every image or video represents the abuse of one or more children. There's no excuse for that. Those who abuse children (sexually or otherwise) should be vigorously prosecuted. However, prosecuting (and then branding for life as a dangerous predator) someone who inadvertently views child porn is wrong.
Even worse, is prosecuting people for having animated depictions or even prose fiction of such stuff.
I can't imagine what I would do if someone abused my child, but it would not be pretty. However, jailing people who stumble on a Traci Lords video online that was made when she was underage (having lied to the producers), is beyond stupid. Then there's the teenager who goes to prison for "possession of CP" and is forever branded a sexual predator because his (also teenage) girlfriend texted him raunchy photos of herself.
I don't have data, but I suspect (please correct me if I'm wrong) that the above are not edge cases where once in a while someone gets swept up in a much larger net of dangerous predators. It seems to me that the dangerous predators once in a while get caught in a much larger net of generally innocent people. It's Bass ackwards, I say.
>> I welcome your comments
I doubt that.
Thank you for your comments. They're much appreciated. Hopefully we can have a productive discussion.
All your flowery language will not distract me from the non-theoretical point: Your desire for anonymity does not give me reason to support changing EXISTING law. Yes, *I* am not the one asking for the current laws be changed - you are. Thus, even though you couch your arguments in lots of scary sounding words, you offer nothing for those whose goal is to live a happy life with their family.
I never said I wanted to change existing laws. Please show me where I said that. The closest thing to changing laws in my post was:
The fact that those rights have been slowly whittled down by unconstitutional legislation and a "law and order" (read fascist) judiciary, doesn't make those rights invalid. Rather it's our job as citizens, members of our communities and our society to police the police, so to speak.
is there something wrong with wanting to preserve the constitutional rights and liberty that our ancestors risked their lives to create for themselves and bequeathed to us?
I want you to be anonymous as well; but the way you want it to happen will strip away the ability of police agencies to prevent violent crime. For no other reason than your personal comfort.
I'm not sure I mentioned anything about anonymity (you're the one who's posting as an AC) or my personal comfort. Nor was that implied. I'm not against law enforcement's ability to investigate crime. I'm against law enforcement (or anyone else, for that matter) violating our highest law (the constitution). Are you against the US constitution? Specific sections or amendments? What specifically do you think should be changed? There are mechanisms (the amendment process) to change the constitution. If Congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures say it needs to change, then we change it.
Again, I am not the one asking that the current laws be changed - YOU and your ilk are. If you are honest in what you want, all you have to do is to convince the majority of the populace that the ability to keep illegal activities secret (to satisfy the needs of the aberrant) is more important than allowing police to detect and follow up on known patterns of behavior that reliably predict violent acts. Which won't get you very far - if you are honest.
I'm not asking for current laws to be changed. I'm demanding that our government abide by our laws.
The constitution does not say that we have rights and liberties unless the police say otherwise. It sounds to me like you don't respect our system or our society. You certainly don't seem to understand (or just don't like) the concepts and ideals embodied in our Constitution.
Which is why we have all this talk of police states and people getting rounded up because they have the wrong eye color or whatever.
Fine, you have your goals. But don't expect the people whose personal goal is to live in peace and be safe from completely predictable violent acts to support you.
My goals include living a good life and doing so ethically and without harming or infringing on the rights of others as guaranteed by our highest law. Not sure what other goals you're referring to. I have career goals and life goals which really aren't any of your business. I have no desire to negatively impact anyone. I just feel strongly that we should hold those who have been given positions of trust and authority to the standards *explicitly* defined by our highest law. What's wrong with that?
And people like you, ASD folks with odd habits and predilections; I'm sorry that there are things you do and needs you have that you'd rather not be known (even if it is only "known" in the macro sense), but you are a tiny minority. And what you want to CH
If the downloading of child pornography is made to be undetectable, then there is no way to detect potentially dangerous pedophiles. There certainly may have been some instance where a pedophile had never downloaded child porn before molesting a child; but the overwhelming number of those convicted of molesting a child had previously engaged in a escalating pattern of behavior that ended with the offense against the person of a child.
[emphasis added]
Citations please. Especially data on the percentage of those who have viewed (intentionally or unintentionally) CP that, at some point after that, actually molest a child.
I should have made it more clear in the post you replied to that I was not specifically referencing the article. So, with that in mind, can you address my post again? Remember, I'm looking for concrete answers, not theoretical generalities.
I think it is a given that parents should strive to make sure their children are good citizens and do knowingly harm others. Nothing I said is referencing that - it is about OTHER people. How do I protect my family (within the framework of the changes you would like to see in the laws) proactively? And I mean without moving my family into the wilderness or otherwise removing them from society.
I understand that there is no way to guarantee the safety of anyone, but there is such a thing as making sure that the odds favor life and safety - and not the opposite.
Freedom isn't necessarily safe.
The same concepts and ideals that allow you to spout off about how the crazies are determined to molest, torture and kill your babies includes the idea that one's personal space is sacrosanct. That's why we used to require warrants for searches and surveillance back in the soi-distant past.
Your family's safety is the responsibility of your family (one shared, hopefully, by your community), not society. Society's responsibility is preserving and protecting our way of life. It's failing miserably, thanks in no small part to selfish, frightened people like yourself and selfish, greedy "people" that make up the "security" (police/intelligence/military/prison, or as I like to call it, PIMP complex) infrastructure.
Why are you asking us to tell you how to keep your family safe? It seems to me like you're either trolling or have such an inflated ego that you think that we should all give up the liberty at the heart of the ideals our nation of laws was founded upon. When you use police techniques that violate the spirit, and often, the letter of our highest law, you risk the entire republic.
You say those who don't obey the law must be removed from society because they're eventually going to be a danger to that society (and what that really means is you think they might be a danger to you or your family, as you clearly have no respect for our society, or the ideals it was founded upon).
Our ideals (many of which are codified in the US constitution and its amendments) say that we have the right to be secure in our persons, homes and property; that negating that security may only be done when there is "probable cause" and that law enforcement must obtain consent (a warrant) from an impartial arbiter (a judge) to vet said "probable cause." They also say that we are innocent until proven guilty -- so that the burden of proof (and "probable cause") is on law enforcement to breach those security rights.
The fact that those rights have been slowly whittled down by unconstitutional legislation and a "law and order" (read fascist) judiciary, doesn't make those rights invalid. Rather it's our job as citizens, members of our communities and our society to police the police, so to speak.
Yes, the ideals of a nation of laws, upon which our society was founded, makes it harder for law enforcement to identify and hold accountable those who violate those laws. That's the price we have to pay to make our society work.
Protect your family. Do all you can to keep them safe. However, while setting up audio and video surveillance without due process may make you *feel* safer, it actually makes you less safe. That's because now you don't just have to worry about the law breakers, you have to worry about the law *enforcers* as well.
I welcome your comments.
Actually they can still target you under a fake identity, so that one wouldn't work so well.
I'll give you that they could *attempt* to make a case on such a basis. Certainly we've seen that twisted in some prosecutions of "hackers". Whether a prosecutor would go along with it in this context, and whether it would even survive preliminary motions is another story altogether.
I see that my sarcasm has eluded you. My apologies for any confusion. The thrust of what I was saying is that it would be ridiculous to try to bring any kind of action (civil or criminal) in a situation like that. Then again, perhaps we will go down that road. That would be quite frightening -- having to pay damages or even go to jail for creating a social networking account with a fake name.
huh! That's even less than your source says we spend on the military, which initially surprised me. But, my first question was: Did they account for spending by the states in their estimate? Further, in trying to sort out the source for the data, the site seemed to repeatedly cite itself in an orobouros-like fashion. Do you have another source?
Is data from The United Nations acceptable?
America spends more per capita on its schools than any other nation in the world.
Actually, we rank fourth
And on a percentage of GDP basis>/a> The US ranks 37th, tied with Estonia.
Right, and this tells me I can't violate TOS with a private company .... where exactly? If you actually read the text you provided, you'll see that it doesn't, not even indirectly.
The remedy for violated ToS is termination of service, as is typically spelled out in the ToS themselves.
Section (A)(5)(C) explicitly states that:
...intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such conduct, causes damage and loss
Accessing a social media account using fake data can certainly be construed as accessing the system without authorization (you are not, in fact, the person whose every move and preference is tracked via this account). Potentially costing FB, G+, etc., etc. money by lying about who you are so they can't target you with their ads (Probably using an ad blocker will eventually be applied to this too), can cause a loss of ad sales revenue.
This must be prevented at all costs! Allowing people to give false names, addresses, birth dates, demographic and psychographic information is a direct assault on our economic system and is just as destructive to our corporate overlor..err..great nation as is a terrorist attack. If you ask me, five years in prison isn't enough for these lowlifes!